CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

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.

check. i'll get it removed from page 1 as well.

too bad, it was a decent design, but the preservation of the old loft building is probably even better, so we win even when we lose.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

14 CFR 77.13

(c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued.

In other words, it's not that the fed. govt. does not allow anything over 2,000'; however you need the fed. govt. to sign-off first...

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

14 CFR 77.13

(c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued.

The 2000 foot limit is not an absolute bar. The law sets up a rebuttable presumption that can be overcome by clear and compelling evidence.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

check. i'll get it removed from page 1 as well.

too bad, it was a decent design, but the preservation of the old loft building is probably even better, so we win even when we lose.

Yeah - I liked the design but I'm not crying over it not being built. Also, across the street it appears Lennar would like to move more quickly than I would have thought (given their financial distress) on Parc Huron. I think they're preparing to begin marketing this year and it showed up recently on Bidclerk.com listing an estimated construction start of Nov. 07 (need to see this first to believe it though)...

[Mr Downtown]

Well, I don't think "scraperfans think it would be cool" is the kind of clear and compelling evidence the FAA is looking for.

[VivaLFuego]

^Is "Parc Huron" the project planned for the currently huge gravel lot accross the street from the 469 project? That loft building is nice, it'll be nice to keep around. That area really desperately needs a few retail spots though, it's quite desolate.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^Is "Parc Huron" the project planned for the currently huge gravel lot accross the street from the 469 project? That loft building is nice, it'll be nice to keep around. That area really desperately needs a few retail spots though, it's quite desolate.

I think Parc Huron is the 469 W. Huron project......it's about 21 stories, Hartshorne and Plunkard modern design.....not a breakthrough design but decent.....there was a 1-story shed on site that was demolished last year.......

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Well, I don't think "scraperfans think it would be cool" is the kind of clear and compelling evidence the FAA is looking for.

Well, I don't think that would be the evidence that a developer of a proposed 2,000'+ tower would actually present...

[SamInTheLoop]

Holy Moses!!!!! The previous bastion of NIMBY Propaganda "journalism", Chicago Journal, has an editorial today singing X/O's praises!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excerpts from, and link to full article follow....

"New architectural structures should not replicate, but compliment the existing buildings."

"A tall and thin structure would add a needed density to the South Loop, attracting more business. And these types of buildings are also some of the most environmentally sustainable types of development, since there is a higher density of people living on a smaller plot of land. Tall and thin developments, like X/O Condominiums, are the future of urban development."


for full article, click:
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=8&ArticleID=3258&TM=65433.43

[Steely Dan]

^ ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! the chicago journal sides against the NIMBYs!?! my whole world is crumbling!

i don't know what to believe anymore.

[Pandemonious]

The Wit appears to actually be under construction. Caisson liners were drilled into the ground, and there were fully assembled rebar cages sitting on site when I walked by. I don't think it is tunnel work, as they don't need fully assembled caisson shaped rebar cages for that. Also, the drill bit that creates the bell at the bottom of the caisson was there too.

I am glad this project made it. The design is somewhat interesting and is a quality infill building IMO, and the hotel will help further liven up that area, and it is adding new restaurants etc. Really, this building doesn't have any downsides. We didn't lose anything important for it either.

I do wish that the building adjacent to it that is attached to that college building would be torn down though.. it is an eyesore.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

The Wit appears to actually be under construction. Caisson liners were drilled into the ground, and there were fully assembled rebar cages sitting on site when I walked by. I don't think it is tunnel work, as they don't need fully assembled caisson shaped rebar cages for that. Also, the drill bit that creates the bell at the bottom of the caisson was there too.

I am glad this project made it. The design is somewhat interesting and is a quality infill building IMO, and the hotel will help further liven up that area, and it is adding new restaurants etc. Really, this building doesn't have any downsides. We didn't lose anything important for it either.

I do wish that the building adjacent to it that is attached to that college building would be torn down though.. it is an eyesore.

Same here - I think this will be an exciting adition to State St. 3 years from now we are going to have a very different, hopefully all-around more vibrant State St....

Also - I assume you're talking about the little ComEd substation - unfortunately I think there's a 0% chance of that building being demolished....

[Pandemonious]

I thought it was some sort of large theater or lecture hall for that college (and hence windowless), but at least it is some valid piece of infrastructure. Would it kill them to maybe paint a mural on it or something.. I walk by it all the time, and it is just plain gross.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! the chicago journal sides against the NIMBYs!?! my whole world is crumbling!

i don't know what to believe anymore.

Believe in building. And building in Chicago.

[denizen467]

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.

I read an interview with Zaya Younan a couple of months ago - he sounds really hard core, but he also sounds like a major Texas-ophile. I believe he's moving his company from California to Texas because he likes Texas so much. If it's between Chicago and Houston, I wouldn't be surprised if Houston gets the supertower. They love big things down there and as someone pointed out, there's no zoning to speak of in Houston.

Wouldn't it be absurdly ironic if Calatrava's Spire project fails to succeed not because of lack of sales or financing, but because from the get-go it loses the cachet of being the city's / hemisphere's tallest.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by denizen467

I read an interview with Zaya Younan a couple of months ago - he sounds really hard core, but he also sounds like a major Texas-ophile. I believe he's moving his company from California to Texas because he likes Texas so much. If it's between Chicago and Houston, I wouldn't be surprised if Houston gets the supertower. They love big things down there and as someone pointed out, there's no zoning to speak of in Houston.

Wouldn't it be absurdly ironic if Calatrava's Spire project fails to succeed not because of lack of sales or financing, but because from the get-go it loses the cachet of being the city's / hemisphere's tallest.

^ Yeah, but being that there isn't a timeline, an architect, a site, or even a city selected, for that matter, I think it's safe to say that this development is a few years off. Besides, with Kelleher starting sales on the CS within weeks, the timing seems way off for both of these developments to end up competing with eachother.

[Alliance]

Since we're off on this. @ WP

[honte]

^ Cool. Now, do one for H-Town and we'll see where it makes the most sense.

_______________

There is a web site for Grand Station, which contains much better renders than those found on Page 1. However, due to new forum rules, I am not sure if I should post them here. Here is a link instead:

http://www.grandstationchicago.com/

[SimbyHeart]

I don't see that possibility very far off. I think Chicago could handle a building that size. What an exiciting time to live in Chicago!
I think Wolf Point is a very important undeveloped part of the city, if they build there it must be something striking and super modern, rounded metallic curtain walls to acentuate the river split with tinted black glass and stainless steel. Norman Foster or another Calatrava would be nice. I also would love to see something like the Nina tower in hong kong.

[GregBear24]

I'd prefer something around 2400ft for wolf point. I think a 3000ft building is somewhat of an impractical gimmick. I don't think people who like to live that high up or pay to live that high up, and most businesses wouldn't pay for that either. Keep it more realistic at 2400ft, and stop trying to be like dubai. The "world's tallest building" is just a name and has nothing to do with quality, practicality, or staying within context of the surrounding city. This sort of thing works in countries with cheaper labor, insane growth, and a need to be "known." We invented the skyscraper and have always had the WTB up until recent years, and just because other people around the world need to compensate for something while they build cities from scratch doesn't mean we have to trump them- not donald. I love chicago because of how everything fits so well with diversity, varying heights, and locations- even sears doesn't take over the skyline- there's balance. A 3000 footer in any city in the world is ridiculous- you can't even appreciate a building that tall in its entirety unless you're almost a mile away from it. Let another city have it and let them put it next to 700 - 800 ft buildings- it'll look absurd.