CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[museumparktom]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

Seems to violate the spirit of ' free and clear ' open lakefront on what is semi public land. I'm sure the anti XO people and ald fioretti won't torpedo this proposal, will they now?

Your reference to the Montgomery Ward Free and Clear Lakefront provision has a specific geographic area (roughly Randolph to 11th street). That came out of the Field Museum proposal which was moved from the center of Grant Park to its current position south of Roosevelt.

If this is a serious proposal and I don't think anyone know for sure, McPier Inc. has a bit more pull that the Freshman Alderman and his NIMBY posse.

[Mr Downtown]

There are two restrictions on the lakefront. The Montgomery Ward decisions, as noted, apply only to Grant Park between Randolph and 11th. However, the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, passed in 1973 because people were so upset over McCormick Place I and Lake Point Tower, sets out some serious procedural hurdles for anything to be built within about 1000 feet of the shoreline (east of Prairie Avenue at this location). One of the "basic policies" is "in no instance will further private development be permitted east of Lake Shore Drive."

The public outcry would be deafening during any administration, but the idea that the Park District, during the administration of this mayor, would permit such a thing in Burnham Park is pretty absurd.

This ain't an actual development proposal, guys.

[museumparktom]

I knew I could count on you MRDT for clarification. Thanks.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Also from:

Goettsch Partners
Selected and Current Works
Images Publishing, 2007

I think cool. Question, why can't it be built over the tracks on the west side of Lakeshore Drive? If it is built where they want it to be built the city parks department must make a killing on the lease!

[Dan in Chicago]

I just spoke with James Goettsch about this. He says the tower's development status is in limbo right now. There would have to be agreement among a selection or consortium of participating broadcasters, although apparently a large part of the expected revenue is expected to come from the observation deck and restaurants.

I got a few heights this morning on South Clark Street:
AMLI 900 - 256' (actually 255 1/2)
Burnham Pointe - 314' (I found an additional 7 inches by looking at the blueprints closely)
Dwight Building - 219' (formerly listed as 626 S. Clark - actually it's 642 South)

...also added a few inches to the Mid-Continental Plaza, aka Park Monroe or 55 East Monroe. When rounding it comes out to 583', a foot higher than before.

[honte]

^ Wow Dan, impressive work. Thanks. Inch by inch, we are determined to make Chicago the world's tallest skyline.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

There are two restrictions on the lakefront. The Montgomery Ward decisions, as noted, apply only to Grant Park between Randolph and 11th. However, the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, passed in 1973 because people were so upset over McCormick Place I and Lake Point Tower, sets out some serious procedural hurdles for anything to be built within about 1000 feet of the shoreline (east of Prairie Avenue at this location). One of the "basic policies" is "in no instance will further private development be permitted east of Lake Shore Drive."

The public outcry would be deafening during any administration, but the idea that the Park District, during the administration of this mayor, would permit such a thing in Burnham Park is pretty absurd.

This ain't an actual development proposal, guys.

If it's being built on a parcel that's currently a parking lot, there shouldn't be that big of an issue.

[Alliance]

Could we make the design of the tower an issue, or are they set on this proposal?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Oh! Thats a great idea.
Silver or black fiberglass!

I think it said in the description in the first render that it would be clad in fiberglass.

The two areas I do like this are the base and the observation deck with the bottom glass which looks sick. Other then that I like the design of the Beitler Tower better especially the supports (though fiberglass is a must IMO) and actual antennas. It would be cool if they could clad it in glass anyway even though that of course would be deemed unnecessarily expensive.

And though I like the idea of the parking lot gone I am not crazy about the lakefront location though better then sitting in Streeterville. I think the general location is now correct in the near southside now it just has to be refined and brought in a bit west. Also I would prefer to just wait for a true multi-use facility similar to 7SD to hopefully come around then a tower like this since it gives possiable incentive for another developer to build a true supertall.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

I got a few heights this morning on South Clark Street:
AMLI 900 - 256' (actually 255 1/2)
Burnham Pointe - 314' (I found an additional 7 inches by looking at the blueprints closely)
Dwight Building - 219' (formerly listed as 626 S. Clark - actually it's 642 South)

...also added a few inches to the Mid-Continental Plaza, aka Park Monroe or 55 East Monroe. When rounding it comes out to 583', a foot higher than before.

thanks for getting those heights, dan! page 1 will be updated just as soon as this temperamental website allows me access to edit the list.

[lalucedm]

I got a few heights this morning on South Clark Street:
AMLI 900 - 256' (actually 255 1/2)
Burnham Pointe - 314' (I found an additional 7 inches by looking at the blueprints closely)
Dwight Building - 219' (formerly listed as 626 S. Clark - actually it's 642 South)

I see (ref. Emporis) that you also confirmed that the architect of the Dwight Building/642 Clark project is Booth Hansen. Interesting. They're a pretty high-profile firm, so you'd think they would have been mentioned more publicly in connection with the project.

[Dan in Chicago]

Yeah, good eye. I forgot to mention that. Also, 155 North Wacker will be 638 feet, an increase of 3 from previous data. I should have gotten an update on when caissons will start.

[chicubs111]

GROUNDBREAKING NEWS: Golub & Company LLC on Monday broke ground on the approximately $150 million Streeter Place apartment building at 355 E. Ohio St. It is scheduled to open in June 2009....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed_notebook_0822aug22,0,1951298.story

[honte]

Crain's is reporting that 203 N. Wabash may become a hotel. ...

Developer plans to convert East Loop property to hotel By Alby Gallun and Eddie Baeb

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26098


... but the article also states that the office building is 86% leased at the moment. I'm having a hard time understanding how this could be a good business decision. The rents must be really low for them to be willing to gamble on a quickly tightening hotel market.

[Kevin J]

Originally Posted by honte

Crain's is reporting that 203 N. Wabash may become a hotel. ...

Developer plans to convert East Loop property to hotel By Alby Gallun and Eddie Baeb

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26098


... but the article also states that the office building is 86% leased at the moment. I'm having a hard time understanding how this could be a good business decision. The rents must be really low for them to be willing to gamble on a quickly tightening hotel market.

Good question. The developer specializes in rehabs and they must project a greater return on their rehab costs for hotel use than for office use (or just holding onto it and collecting the current rents). It's a very old building and if it sold for only $9 million as recently as 2001, it can't be generating much in the way of rental income vs. costs to operate.

[Mr Downtown]

Rents there are around $14/foot. Lots of small users, folks (like me) who have more and more trouble finding reasonably priced small offices in the Loop.

The building, the Old Dearborn Bank Building, got Class L landmark protection a few years back, so there are property tax breaks to sweeten the pot for residential or hotel conversion. Window line is excellent, clear to the north, west, and south. Elevators are on the east wall, and the Stanley Tigerman parking garage to the east allows (for now) east-facing windows above about the 8th floor.

[BVictor1]

I didn't see this posted here. If it was I'm sorry about the double posting. If you haven't seen the videos, they're a must.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-070817tall-story,0,6407755.story

How to build today's supertalls
Elegance, not machismo, is behind Chicago's unprecedented reach for the sky

By Blair Kamin | Tribune architecture critic
August 18, 2007

A white hard-hat on his head, the earnest look of a professor on his face, Bill Baker has a ready metaphor to reveal the hidden structural logic behind Chicago's unprecedented reach into the sky. Mimicking the cores of concrete that shoot up the center of today's supertall skyscrapers, Baker stands like a soldier at attention, his feet touching. The silolike cores are too thin to single-handedly brace the towers against howling winds, he says. So Baker extends his left arm and puts it on the shoulder of a colleague standing with him in front of Donald Trump's ever-growing skyscraper on the Chicago River's north bank.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-070817tall-story,0,6407755.story

[Alliance]

^^^

"Indeed, structural engineers have played an integral role in the development of tall buildings for nearly 125 years."

DUUURRRRHHHHH.

[hi123]

very off topic question: has the streeter II started construction yet?

[jcchii]

I'm in favor of the tower near mccormick place.
I hated the river location