CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by j korzeniowski

in his defense, it can get confusing with all of the hills here. i think the old chicago highlanders of the federal baseball league played on the bluffs where where the hancock is now located.

Is this sarcasm? I sure hope so...

[aaron38]

I think Solarwind is secretly Spiderman, and takes construction photos as he swings through the city. I don't know how else you get those crazy views.
Nice work.

[SamInTheLoop]

Editorial the other day in the Sun-Times was on-point, presenting generally balanced view basically stating that yes, there are a couple (I would characterize them as NIMBY issues) outstanding issues regarding the plan, but they are quite minor compared to the significance and worthiness of this proposal. Come on guys - work them out quickly and get this one under construction...

[honte]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

That's amazing - already beginning excavation! There's something quite beautiful about a super-efficient, streamlined construction project. 155 seems to be a superb example (afterall, this building needs to be delivered July 2009, so it's an incredibly tight timeline here).

Yeah, must be easy since they've already built nearly the same building twice down the street...

[SamInTheLoop]

First, no one admires the building more than I. However, after it is landmarked, which it undoubtedly will be, I have no concerns whatsoever with a revamp of some floors into a hotel. If the project is successful, it's a win all-around - an economic rejuvenation of a stressed property, and we get to maintain its integrity as an architectural landmark.

Second, I think this is just a back-up plan by the owner. Trust me, if office leasing activity at the building were to pick up enough in the next 6-12 months, I think they will shelve the partial hotel conversion plans extremely quickly. I view the conversion plan as an absolute last resort act of desparation to boost greatly sagging returns on the asset, and if there is any avenue whatsoever to avoid the measure and keep the entire building office, I believe they will...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by honte

Yeah, must be easy since they've already built nearly the same building twice down the street...

indeed.

[spyguy]

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

Chicago — McCormick Place Hotel Expansion, 2301 S. Lake Shore Dr., 900,000-sq.-ft. hotel addition, December 2007, $150 million.

[harryc]

Open for business

[harryc]

Fits in as it is



Oct 31



full set http://picasaweb.google.com/harry.r.carmichael/111WIllinoisFromABA

[harryc]

Shoring up the neighbor

yesterday


today




Pounding down a few during lunch







View from above
full set http://picasaweb.google.com/harry.r.carmichael/155NWackerHeli

[harryc]

Columns









Climbing crane ( just like the one at Aqua







From afar

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by harryc

Open for business

...wow. i love this building. (R.I.P. MASONIC TEMPLE) i wish i could say the same about loehmanns (TACKY)... doesn't that cheapy red signage just screen strip mall? i don't know why but something like... i don't know... ADIDAS seems so much more appropriate for an all glass, modern white building. that aside, wow, the glass looks beautiful in that picture and more so in person. i can't wait for them to finish the upper part, clean it, and let it shine like the base. what is it about white-glass buildings that's just so CLEAN looking?

EDIT: ATTENTION DEVELOPERS! Please hire Booth Hansen for more projects in this city. Thank you.

[Alliance]

wow. You have a baby now.

[Tom Servo]

Speaking of Booth Hansen, what's the status of that P.O.S. Lucien Lagrange Ritz-Whatever building? is that thing a go? Or is someone gonna buck-up and save the Terra building?

[honte]

^ I have a little inside beef on that one, beyond what was reported by Roeder - all hearsay, so take it as you will. The city's Landmarks Commission has washed its hands of the thing despite the glimmer of hope that they might actually flex some muscle and do what's right... but that's water under the bridge.

The development is hinging on (obviously) adequate sales, which they are close to having. However, the MWRD building next door owns the alley, as reported in Roeder's article. Apparently (and I don't understand how this slipped by the surveyors, architects, etc), but no one on the design team or from Prism seemed to know about this. The development has a valet-run car lift as its only access to the parking garage (much to the annoyance of the developer, I presume: damn landmarked facade in their way ), and without access from the alley, they will have to redesign the whole project - if that's even possible, since the landmarked facade must be retained, and they have mostly Michigan Ave frontage.

Well, from what I've overheard, MWRD is playing hardball with these guys. Some kind of demands for parking and other types of punishment for using "their" alley.

All in all, I think Prism is getting what it deserves for doing a crappy project and for screwing around with a City Landmark. We'll have to see how accurate the above is, and what comes of it.

[sale]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Seems to be another lengthy delay in the glass installation at MoMo. It doesn't appear as if any new glass has been installed in maybe 1.5-2 months.......anybody know the story with this delay?

I have noticed this, too. I look out of my office everyday and see nothing happening at MoMo.

[CHAPINM1]

delete post

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by honte

^ I have a little inside beef on that one, beyond what was reported by Roeder - all hearsay, so take it as you will. The city's Landmarks Commission has washed its hands of the thing despite the glimmer of hope that they might actually flex some muscle and do what's right... but that's water under the bridge.

The development is hinging on (obviously) adequate sales, which they are close to having. However, the MWRD building next door owns the alley, as reported in Roeder's article. Apparently (and I don't understand how this slipped by the surveyors, architects, etc), but no one on the design team or from Prism seemed to know about this. The development has a valet-run car lift as its only access to the parking garage (much to the annoyance of the developer, I presume: damn landmarked facade in their way ), and without access from the alley, they will have to redesign the whole project - if that's even possible, since the landmarked facade must be retained, and they have mostly Michigan Ave frontage.

Well, from what I've overheard, MWRD is playing hardball with these guys. Some kind of demands for parking and other types of punishment for using "their" alley.

All in all, I think Prism is getting what it deserves for doing a crappy project and for screwing around with a City Landmark. We'll have to see how accurate the above is, and what comes of it.

...whoa. thanks for the inside beef. so let me see if i get what you're saying: the project hit a bump big enough to de-rail the whole thing? second question: the Terra building was put before the Landmark Commission and they denied it? or the city 'washed their hands' as in they don't care what happens to the Terra building?

[honte]

^ 1. Given the money already in the project, I suspect they will reach an agreement.

2. In a nutshell, the building you are referring to (Farwell Building), which housed part of the Terra, was designated an official Landmark a few years ago. The Commission first shockingly voted against allowing a facadectomy, despite full endorsement of the project by the City's Planning Department and Landmarks Division, effectively killing the proposal. Some hoped that the developer would be forced to produce a new plan that kept the old building intact, and put a sliver high-rise on the other parcel. However, they presented a slightly different version of the plans, and the Commission later re-voted in favor. Commissioners were swayed by engineering reports that indicated the state of the building's structure is dire - and by the fact that the City and lawyers were pressuring them to do this. The facade will be dismantled and reconstructed on a new structure, much as the McGraw-Hill building/facade.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by honte

^ 1. Given the money already in the project, I suspect they will reach an agreement.

2. In a nutshell, the building you are referring to (Farwell Building), which housed part of the Terra, was designated an official Landmark a few years ago. The Commission first shockingly voted against allowing a facadectomy, despite full endorsement of the project by the City's Planning Department and Landmarks Division, effectively killing the proposal. Some hoped that the developer would be forced to produce a new plan that kept the old building intact, and put a sliver high-rise on the other parcel. However, they presented a slightly different version of the plans, and the Commission later re-voted in favor. Commissioners were swayed by engineering reports that indicated the state of the building's structure is dire - and by the fact that the City and lawyers were pressuring them to do this. The facade will be dismantled and reconstructed on a new structure, much as the McGraw-Hill building/facade.

second question: the Terra building was put before the Landmark Commission and they denied it? or the city 'washed their hands' as in they don't care what happens to the Terra building?

sorry, i'm talking about the Booth Hansen designed Terra Museum building...