CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by DHamp

^^ I didn't say anything about the parking garage in the quoted segment above. Besides I think you already said that earlier. Care to elaborate?

Just what "future use" do you want for that parking garage? A supertall? I doubt it. This is the financial district of the loop. Office developers just aren't building anything that tall anymore. I think we'd be lucky to see another all office building 311's height over there. I'd love to be proven wrong on that one. Short of that, I'd like to see the hotel on the west half of that garage block and maybe another office building on the other half.

Yes, I do want a supertall there, I think, seeing as how the financial district is quickly running out of lots, it will be hemmed in once that stuff to the south gets developed, demand there will soar. Also, if this trend towards urban living continues, this could be a spot for a potential mixed use supertall.

Its simply not true that they don't build office like that anymore. Maybe they haven't done office like that in Chicago lately, but NY is looking a several potential supertall office towers and SF has got the Transbay proposal as all office. Also, they still build office that tall in other financial capitals of the world like Hong Kong and Singapore and even London is potentially getting a supertall office. Its only a matter of time before demmand in that area gets high enough to drive that parking garage to potentially turn into a supertall. If not, it would be a great place to put parking under a park/plaza.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm all for as much density as possible, but let's stop equating height with density and figure out a way to do high-density between 8 and 15 stories. Paris and other European cities manage to do it (albeit with smaller square footage per unit).

How familiar are you with Chicago's zoning code? I'm not so sure that what we might consider as acceptable density (e.g. fully transit- and retail- supportive) is evenpossible with anything other than highrises, given the deference towards parking requirements, minimum unit sizes, limits on the percentage of efficiency units, etc. etc. that are rampant throughout the bulk and density standards for nearly every zoning classification. Our few vibrant low-rise neighborhoods were all built in a time before the above zoning standards were put in place which severely limit the effective unit density.

"figure out a way" involves basically scrapping the zoning code in its current form, and that hardly seems plausible. Even with the flexibility provided by the PD process, new developments need to at least show some consistency with the plans and zoning that are in place. There's no way anyone could get a european-style 6-story building crammed with flats approved in this city (the 4+1s were getting pretty close to what's needed, but that 'problem' was dealt with first through zoning amendments, then fully quashed in the most recent full re-write). The only way to achieve unit density while working within the framework of "modern" zoning is to follow the Vancouver model.....namely, lots of highrises.

Now, if every lot in the West Loop were maxed out at 12 stories, adequate unit density would likely be acheived. But that's not a plausible plan either; there are alot of warehouses and offices (jobs) in the area that have no intention of moving. So the density of residential has to be increased commensurately.

[Neuman]

Well since some have been talking about the West loop, I figured I let you know that the project along Madison at 1260 West has been down sized from the original 12 stories to 5 with 1st floor retail included. Looks a bit like those two buildings in central station with the red highlites along the lake, just much shorter. There is a 3D video on the following website that lets you take a look at the exterior. I don't see a surface lot as was rumored a few posts back, but I do see some strange 2 story structures on the North West portion of the lot that I can only assume will be future townhomes?

http://www.modcondoschicago.com/

I give it a C...

[Alliance]

..ick.

and 5 stories?

[HK Chicago]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Therefore something we should not be emulating.

It's in Burnham's original Plan of Chicago. Also, I agree with you on Sears Tower.

[JMH_Architecture]

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

Oh God nooooo

[2PRUROCKS!]

I love the SMITH&GILL proposals. That clean energy tower is sweet! I hope it is a real project that gets built. And I love the ecobridge which is an excellent updated version of what Burnham invisioned. I would go out there all the time to run, bike, take photos and just soak in thre view and the atmosphere. It would add to our parks and the sculptural tower is really great as well. I think it would be a great spot for the Olympic flame (the Spire would be great too but this may be even better being isolated and closer to more of the venues).

[SkokieSwift]

Some shots of The Elysian, 50 E. Chestnut, The Clare at Watertower, and – if you look really closely – Trump, from 10/7...

[DHamp]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Yes, I do want a supertall there, I think, seeing as how the financial district is quickly running out of lots, it will be hemmed in once that stuff to the south gets developed, demand there will soar. Also, if this trend towards urban living continues, this could be a spot for a potential mixed use supertall.

Its simply not true that they don't build office like that anymore. Maybe they haven't done office like that in Chicago lately, but NY is looking a several potential supertall office towers and SF has got the Transbay proposal as all office. Also, they still build office that tall in other financial capitals of the world like Hong Kong and Singapore and even London is potentially getting a supertall office. Its only a matter of time before demmand in that area gets high enough to drive that parking garage to potentially turn into a supertall. If not, it would be a great place to put parking under a park/plaza.

The key phrase being "other financial capitals of the world". That is, outside the US where it's more feasible fiscally and where you often have gov't funded skyscraper growth. I don't like it any more than you do, but the 50-60 story office tower is about as good as it gets, even with high demand. I hope you're not holding up NYTT and BOA as examples of NY supertalls, because without the superfluous spires, they fit the mold I'm talking about. The new WTC towers are the only exception and they are replacing what was destroyed. SF actively pent-up demand by not allowing anything tall to be built since Trans America. Unless you suggest Chicago start doing what SF's been doing for the last 30 years, I still don't see an office supertall in that lot's future. I'll say again, that I'd like to be proven wrong. But I'll gladly take a couple of 700-800 footers on that lot like Alliance said.

Now with respect to mixed-use supertalls, yeah, maybe, but those kind of developments like to see amenities like guaranteed views and proximity to retail and other activity. A residential/hotel supertall next door to Sears Tower would be far from the Michigan Ave, far from the lake or any parks. If you get your way, there won't even be a plaza next to Sears Tower for residents to enjoy. Views of the river and west will be largely blocked by ST as well. Without those kinds of amenities nearby, it's difficult to justify high enough unit prices to afford to build anything that tall. I don't think it's a good spot for a mixed-use supertall either. Unless you mean mixed hotel and office - which doesn't seem too popular. If that was the case, they could just put hotels in Sears Tower and save themselves the expense.

[forumly_chgoman]

Originally Posted by Neuman

Well since some have been talking about the West loop, I figured I let you know that the project along Madison at 1260 West has been down sized from the original 12 stories to 5 with 1st floor retail included. Looks a bit like those two buildings in central station with the red highlites along the lake, just much shorter. There is a 3D video on the following website that lets you take a look at the exterior. I don't see a surface lot as was rumored a few posts back, but I do see some strange 2 story structures on the North West portion of the lot that I can only assume will be future townhomes?

http://www.modcondoschicago.com/

I give it a C...

Wow...that is real crap

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I don't think the skyscrapers you see going up in London, Shanghi, and Hong Kong are subsidized by the government anymore than what you would see in Chicago (TIF's anyone?).

I'm not referring to NYTT or BofA, I'm referring to the proposed Midtown developments rumored be as high as 1200'. There are several other places there that possible supertall offices might be built in the near future. Just go into a New York thread and ask NYGuy to tell you about them, he'd be more than happy to!

[Chicago2020]

How much do you guys think that EcoBridge would cost?????

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

How much do you guys think that EcoBridge would cost?????

Probably about $$$$$$$$, give or take $

[Alliance]

I'd rather have a CTA.

[Dr. Taco]

do you think a monorail is included in that echo bridge??

but seriously, folks...

I like. Burnham was a smart man. that OD in the center is questionable, however

[GregBear24]

The eco bridge project will never happen unless the city approves a $2billion TIF for a project that'll bring in little revenue if any after costs are realized. The sculpture should be a larger version of the one they had at the columbian expo in the white city.

[DHamp]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I don't think the skyscrapers you see going up in London, Shanghi, and Hong Kong are subsidized by the government anymore than what you would see in Chicago (TIF's anyone?).

I'm not referring to NYTT or BofA, I'm referring to the proposed Midtown developments rumored be as high as 1200'. There are several other places there that possible supertall offices might be built in the near future. Just go into a New York thread and ask NYGuy to tell you about them, he'd be more than happy to!

I wasn't aware that Trump, Waterview, and the Spire were using TIFs?

In New York, the rumored 1200 footer probably has a 400 ft spire on it. In any case, call me when the rumor becomes a real proposal. Chicago has got a handful of supertall rumors floating around as well. I don't seriously deal in rumors. And I'm not asking NYGuy about anything. I don't care. I want Chicago to be the best Chicago it can be and I don't have time for the penis measuring with NY.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by DHamp

I wasn't aware that Trump, Waterview, and the Spire were using TIFs?

In New York, the rumored 1200 footer probably has a 400 ft spire on it. In any case, call me when the rumor becomes a real proposal. Chicago has got a handful of supertall rumors floating around as well. I don't seriously deal in rumors. And I'm not asking NYGuy about anything. I don't care. I want Chicago to be the best Chicago it can be and I don't have time for the penis measuring with NY.

I know that our supertalls here aren't currently using TIFs, but they are all residential, a lot of our Office is built with TIFs because its not as profitable or strong a market as superluxary condos. I wasn't talking about supertalls, I was talking about our government subsidizing developments in general. We do it just as often, if not more than, cities like London, NY, and Shanghi. Just look at this recent Sears proposal, 60 million TIF? If that's not an extreme subsidy I don't know what is, that's the only part I don't like about it...

Actually some intial renders were leaked on those westside supertalls, and no, they did not have spires, surprisingly enough.

All I am saying is eventually, there will be a point that the office market in Chicago gets good enough to trigger another supertall office building. Though in all likelyhood any supertall office is likely to include a mix of uses somehow, hotel or residential.

[Alliance]

well, I kind of wonder why proposals like 200 N. Riverside would rather propose two towers. If the Hotel and the 700' office building were combined, that could have been another supertall.

The problem is anchor tenants. Can anyone convince McDonalds that they need to abandon Oak Brook and build a downtown supertall office tower? I'd almost rather have Chicago not TIF our way to the "top" (since most people's tops are spires 1/3 the size of the building). Its more credible. We have several new office towers, Hyatt, 111, UBS and 1SD...now with 300N, BCBS expansion and 200N Riverside, we're not doing THAT bad...just no supertalls or mixed use supertalls with office.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ That's my point though, the reason we haven't seen supertall offices for a while is because there hasn't been the demmand for them, especially because we have virtually unlimited space. However, one of the things this boom is doing is hemming in the CBD with Residential developments that will be very expensive to buy out. This will eventually limit the available places to build and force developers to make better use of each lot with taller buildings.

I mean we are about to see the last couple surface lots in the Loop built on and the WLCO NIMBYs to the West prevent them from building westward and Streetville is about to run out of lots. Can't build East toward the lake. So really the only directions left for the CBD to go are north, by 353 N. Clark and 300 LaSalle, and south into those open lots. Eventually (probably after the next boom cycle) critical mass will be reached and there will be no choice but to start building tall office again.