CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[forumly_chgoman]

Originally Posted by honte

Per new forum guidelines, I will only post links and the first few lines:

From Crain's:
http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25777

(Crain's) — Joseph Freed & Associates LLC is in preliminary talks with the city for as much as $10 million in tax-increment financing to help renovate the ornate ironwork of the Carson Pirie Scott & Co. building, sources say.

...

From the Sun-Times, Roeder discusses the X/O Downzoning issue:
http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/482175,CST-FIN-roeder25.article

Chicago developers, so used to getting what they want out of City Hall, are suddenly playing by different rules. Newly minted aldermen from the two wards that include the city's core in the last two weeks have moved to spike controversial projects.

God..I really hope that this act by Fioretti is just political panderng to his constituency...even so he should be held accountable for wasting potentially hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in city money on possible litiagation / preparation etc.

[SevenSevenThree]

What ever happened to that proposal where each floor rotated individually around the core? Was that even a serious proposal? I think there was an article. Can someone point me in the right direction?

[j korzeniowski]

Originally Posted by SevenSevenThree

What ever happened to that proposal where each floor rotated individually around the core? Was that even a serious proposal? I think there was an article. Can someone point me in the right direction?

'ere yar:

ARCHITECTURE

Tower twirls and debate starts to swirl

By Blair Kamin | Tribune architecture critic
May 6, 2007

It sounds, at first blush, like an oversize architectural joke -- a skyscraper where each floor would revolve independently around a central core, not only making a 360-degree rotation but also creating a constantly shifting profile.

Link

[SevenSevenThree]

Originally Posted by j korzeniowski

'ere yar:

ARCHITECTURE

Tower twirls and debate starts to swirl

By Blair Kamin | Tribune architecture critic
May 6, 2007

It sounds, at first blush, like an oversize architectural joke -- a skyscraper where each floor would revolve independently around a central core, not only making a 360-degree rotation but also creating a constantly shifting profile.

Link

Thank you kindly.

[Rocket1]

^^^^

Having the apartments continually revolve around the core seems incredibly complex and hard to implement.

Seems to me that moving them 90 degrees (or whatever) once a month would be much easier to implement from a plumbing, etc, point of view.

[SamInTheLoop]

Just my opinion, but I highly doubt that was even remotely close to a serious proposal...

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

Contradictory information has circulated about the demise of The Curve and the Park Kingsbury, so Emporis is waiting for more definitive news before changing those to never-built.

Dan, Park Kingsbury is for sure dead. The developers filed a administrative relief with DPD that is now part of thier planned development, which calls for scraping the tower plan and re-using the existing Ronsley Loft Building for about 50 units. Personally, I like the idea of keeping that handsome loft building, I would have liked the tower too, but this is a nice consolation prize. I went ahead and made the change at Emporis.

[chicubs111]

Towering ambition
CONSTRUCTION | Developer wants world's tallest for U.S.

July 26, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER [email protected]
Zaya Younan is not crazy. Since starting a real estate business in 2002, he has become one of the largest office landlords in Texas, and accumulated property worth about $1.5 billion, claiming strong and steady returns for investors.

Now he wants to build the world's tallest building. He wants it in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston. He wants it for the glory of the United States of America, and to take advantage of long-term trends that he said will lead to more vertical living in major cities.


http://www.suntimes.com/business/484603,CST-FIN-younan26.article

[Busy Bee]

Wolf Point. Wolf Point!

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Towering ambition
CONSTRUCTION | Developer wants world's tallest for U.S.

July 26, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER [email protected]
Zaya Younan is not crazy. Since starting a real estate business in 2002, he has become one of the largest office landlords in Texas, and accumulated property worth about $1.5 billion, claiming strong and steady returns for investors.

Now he wants to build the world's tallest building. He wants it in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston. He wants it for the glory of the United States of America, and to take advantage of long-term trends that he said will lead to more vertical living in major cities.


http://www.suntimes.com/business/484603,CST-FIN-younan26.article

I'd love to see it...only in Chicago of course There isn't even a contest between where it should be built.

Typical "Chicagoan"...my reality meter stands at zero, yet I dream no small dreams. Now that al Burj seemse to be completely out of the question, its time for this city to move for the kill.

However, I hope he designs us a BUILDING...and not an astronomically sized POS.

Just build it before the 2016 Games.

[F1 Tommy]

Sounds like a cool idea.I cant see it in LA due to earthquakes,
but the guy is from Texas.If under the very small chance it got built he
probably would do it in Houston where NIMBYS are shot on sight (Texas proud)

[DHamp]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Towering ambition
CONSTRUCTION | Developer wants world's tallest for U.S.

July 26, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER [email protected]
Zaya Younan is not crazy. Since starting a real estate business in 2002, he has become one of the largest office landlords in Texas, and accumulated property worth about $1.5 billion, claiming strong and steady returns for investors.

Now he wants to build the world's tallest building. He wants it in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston. He wants it for the glory of the United States of America, and to take advantage of long-term trends that he said will lead to more vertical living in major cities.


http://www.suntimes.com/business/484603,CST-FIN-younan26.article

This guy should build The Illinois, preferably at Wolf Point. That'd make us all happy. The building would be very clearly visible from many angles and I'd imagine there's less NIMBYs in that neck of the woods than, say, Streeterville.

As long as al Burj is on the table, even 4000 feet isn't really enough if you want to ensure it will be the tallest for a long time. I say go for the mile mark (5280 ft) if you're going to do it. But minimizing sway is going to be a big headache.

[Dr. Taco]

^ you know, thats nice and all, but I'd prefer him setting his sites on something more realistic, but equally awesome, like a 1500' building. I definitely don't want a mile-high building any time soon in chicago (does that make me a....NIMBY??), but in order for it to the tallest, it had better be an awe-inspiring design. plain old height just doesn't do it for me

with that said, does anyone have any positive information on this guy? I've never even heard of him before, but apparently 20% of his portfolio is in the chicagoland area. has he done anything good in chicago?

and i seriously doubt he'd pick LA for this thing, what with the added complication of consistent earthquakes...

[DHamp]

^ I'm with you. I said "if you're going to do it." Meaning that if he's planing on building a WTB that will stay WTB for a notable length of time, 3000ft isn't going to cut it, but a mile might. Of course, I want whatever goes at Wolf Point to be well designed - height alone doesn't do it for me either. I've had my mind on a ~1500 footer at WP myself.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^

Yes, you are a NIMBY... Seriously though, at this point, knowing that CS is looking like it will get built, a mile high building really isn't that unrealistic for Chicago. I mean we made a proportionately similar jump back in the day with Hancock, nearly doubling the height of any other building in the city with just one building. Why not double the height of CS and go for 4000'? Sure it would look out of place for a decade or two, but eventually there would be a forest of CS sized buildings surrounding it and it would look just like Sears or Hancock does today... I say go for it, build as tall as you want as long as what you build has a decent design and doesn't look like shit...

Perhaps he can get his hands on some Texas oil money and pull a Dubai...

I really can't see him building anything tall anywhere but Chicago, there really is no other place that just outright loves tall buildings but Chicago, look at how quickly we approved Chicago Spire, the tallest building in the Hemisphere... Anywhere else a WTB proposal would be eaten alive by BANANAS and NIMBYs...

[bnk]

Originally Posted by DHamp

^ . Of course, I want whatever goes at Wolf Point to be well designed - height alone doesn't do it for me either. I've had my mind on a ~1500 footer at WP myself.

Yea I no longer even want the WTB title anymore. Let Dubai have it. I would rather keep the present scale to the skyline. The most I would ever like to see, and only at a WP type location, is 2500 feet max.

..."All of which might cause builders and property investors to wonder if Younan is conversant with reality."

[F1 Tommy]

I hope your right.
And Chicago is the only city in the USA that could handle
a tower this big without looking out of place.Lets see what his proposal looks like before we get to excited about it.

[DHamp]

...well we don't even know for certain that it is going to be proposed for Chicago, or if he's going to really propose anything at all. Wanting to build a WTB but not be certain where you want to build it is something of a red flag; as if he's just trying to get attention for something else.

[Ataraxy]

Originally Posted by DHamp

^ I'm with you. I said "if you're going to do it." Meaning that if he's planing on building a WTB that will stay WTB for a notable length of time, 3000ft isn't going to cut it, but a mile might. Of course, I want whatever goes at Wolf Point to be well designed - height alone doesn't do it for me either. I've had my mind on a ~1500 footer at WP myself.

Wolf point is way to small for even a 2000 footer like the spire, its a great piece of land but heights not everything. I'd rather a design thats unique and has never been done to a gigantic eyesore any day. Chicago may be known for having some of the tallest buildings in the world, but its truely known for the amazing diversity between the styles and creativity of its architecture.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Ataraxy

Wolf point is way to small for even a 2000 footer like the spire.

how do you figure? if a 1,000 footer can be built on the waterview site, then a 2,000+ footer could easily fit on the far larger wolf point property.