CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 194

Jaroslaw · #**3861** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecker

Crib Chatter is a blog about the Chicago housing market and has interesting posts about flips and foreclosures, including many that are happening in buildings from the current boom.

Great find. The guy is negative--

--and he gets some good feedback too.

No surprise that the Sterling has more foreclosed units than any other highrise from this boom. No other building has had its view as destroyed as this one. After it was built, these guys got slammed from pretty much every direction: 400 N LaSalle, 300 N LaSalle (destroying their sunsets), and on the east, 353 Clark, and the Marriott Suites.

Ecker · #**3862** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 2:51 AM**

It seems every once and a while someone expresses an interest in seeing what 55 East Erie was supposed to look like before they dropped the "flying buttresses" from the plan. I don't recall anyone ever posting the rendering, so here you go.

Chicago Shawn · #**3863** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayosthery

We will be driving 90 or so "shared" piles between the parking garage / retail / loft area and the future highrise. Call it what you want (under or not under construction), but we are not building the highrise yet, just driving shared piles. Therefore, please clarify which section of the forum this project should be discussed in, General Dev or Highrise Construction.

Thanks Kayosthery. Since the shared piles do bear some weight of the future high-rise I would say it counts as construction. The tower can then be classified as "on hold" untill the rest of the construction commences. Does anyone else agree or disagree?

Btw, neat angle on that photo, the area almost looks rural.

Dr. Taco · #**3864** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 4:19 AM**

^ wow, it does look rural, haha. nice

is all that green space south of roosevelt a park, preserved land, or undeveloped property...

Dr. Taco · #**3865** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 4:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

There's one thing wrong with that Eco-Bridge + monument plan: Burnham's Plan called for a similar thing, but the peninsula mirroring the planetarium came off of Randolph Street instead of Wacker Drive. That put the center of the arc, and the monument, in line with the Congress Street axis. Maybe it's just prejudice, but the new plan looks off-center to me because it's stretched north, and the monument lines up with Jackson.

I'm gonna have to agree with you ten times

Loopy · #**3866** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 4:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Thanks Kayosthery. Since the shared piles do bear some weight of the future high-rise I would say it counts as construction. The tower can then be classified as "on hold" untill the rest of the construction commences. Does anyone else agree or disagree?

Has the tower design and details been made public yet? Has anyone even seen a full rendering?

ChitownBill · #**3867** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 10:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopy

Has the tower design and details been made public yet? Has anyone even seen a full rendering?

Go to loftsrc.com and you will see what the full development is suppose to look like. Phase 1 is currently being constructed which will include the retail and low rise loft condos. Phase 2 which is the tower has not been announced yet.

trvlr70 · #**3868** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 1:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecker

It seems every once and a while someone expresses an interest in seeing what 55 East Erie was supposed to look like before they dropped the "flying buttresses" from the plan. I don't recall anyone ever posting the rendering, so here you go.

Most of us have seem similar renders. This one still gets me fired up.

Grrrrrr....!

BVictor1 · #**3869** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 3:10 PM**

If the high-energy design of 601 W. Monroe is built, it will be well over 600' tall. I've obtained higher resolution renderings and will post them as soon as I get the okay.

Alliance · #**3870** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 4:12 PM**

Is it still on the table?

Chicago3rd · #**3871** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 4:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70

Most of us have seem similar renders. This one still gets me fired up.

Grrrrrr....!

Back to anger management counseling I go.

BVictor1 · #**3872** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Is it still on the table?

Sure is

harryc · #**3873** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

There's one thing wrong with that Eco-Bridge + monument plan: Burnham's Plan called for a similar thing, but the peninsula mirroring the planetarium came off of Randolph Street instead of Wacker Drive. That put the center of the arc, and the monument, in line with the Congress Street axis. Maybe it's just prejudice, but the new plan looks off-center to me because it's stretched north, and the monument lines up with Jackson.

By the way, has anyone seen the History Channel foundation crane since it left the Spire site?

from http://www.wright.edu/~william.lafferty/v1n2page1.htm

from http://64.143.36.15/html/history/Meigs_History.html

scalziand · #**3874** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 7:07 PM**

I find it interesting to note that the burnham plan had a couple extra bridges going to Wolfe point.

Jaroslaw · #**3875** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 8:13 PM**

CMK has a rendering of 235 W VanBuren (is that even uc?) that I haven't seen before. In a PDF here:

http://www.cmkcompanies.com/site/files/5...ew_Homes_-_CMK_enlists_Ralph_Johnson.pdf

Nowhereman1280 · #**3876** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 9:32 PM**

Quick Print Screen of that image:

I don't know if this is a new image or not, it seems to be more detailed than what we've seen before.

wrab · #**3877** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 9:50 PM**

^^ The balconies have a lot of punch to 'em and will give us all some interesting shadow play. The parking podium, maybe not so good.

honte · #**3878** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 10:22 PM**

^ Yeah, P+W are devoutly modernist (bless their hearts), it seems they still adhere to that ideal that a parking garage should look like a parking garage. Not sure it works in this case.

Don't forget, however, that we're looking at the "back." Perhaps at least there will be something more energetic on the street side.

Jaroslaw, yes, it's very much under-construction. I was at the site today.

spyguy · #**3879** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 10:50 PM**

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=2166

Chicago — FiField Offices, 601 W. Monroe, 400,000-sq.-ft. office building, January 2008, $46 million.

Chicago — 150 N Jefferson Hotel, 150 N. Jefferson St., new boutique hotel, October 2008, $2 million.

spyguy · #**3880** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 11:04 PM**

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/616718,CST-FIN-roeder24.article

Making no small bets

October 24, 2007
DAVID ROEDER

BELL'S RINGING: Now that Bank of America Corp. has completed its purchase of LaSalle Bank, developers should cast a covetous eye toward an interesting piece of excess corporate real estate. LaSalle owns a small building at 79 W. Monroe, the old flagship office of Bell Federal Savings and now home to a Walgreens. It figures to be a logical site for an office high-rise.

-----------

No matter what happens to that old building, the Weather Bell must be kept!