CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

honte and tup, are you beginning to believe what I've been saying about Hack Reilly?

^ Grrr, in this case, yes. perfect place for a high-rise.

[Busy Bee]

Thats about right. Lets let a developer tear down the Esquire, which IMO should be a landmarked building, to preserve another landmark? Isnt there an ounce of concern from the city for the Esquire. Its not as if we have tons of Deco/Moderne cinemas around this town. EEERRRGGGHHHHH!!!

[honte]

^ Yes, totally moronic to lose that building. Not only a great building, but an early work by one of the leading Modernist firms.

If I am not mistaken, back when the city wasn't doing as good of a job on landmarking, the Esquire was proposed as a landmark, but rejected by the commission due to interior alterations. Due to a technicality in the law books, they cannot reconsider a rejected proposed landmark for landmarking again unless they have consent of the owner, or if it is in a district with other buildings.

[BVictor1]

^The Esquire isn't worth landmarking.

CALENDAR NOTES: Lee Bey, executive director of the Chicago Central Area Committee, discusses "Unbuilt Chicago," grand projects that never happened, during a Friends of Downtown lunch-hour program Thursday at the Chicago Cultural Center, 78 E. Washington. See friendsofdowntown.org.

DePaul University's real estate school mixes it up Jan. 15 with a program about the "Changing Rules of Mixed Development." It will run all afternoon at the Chicago Cultural Center, 78 E. Washington. See realestate.depaul.edu.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

From the article, in re: the Chabad site at Clark/Chestnut:
Reilly said he's cautioning anyone interested in the site not to think too grandly. He said he won't even take to the neighborhood any proposal for something taller than a mid-rise. Others have said a 15-story building could be proposed.

This makes no sense. That lot is 2 blocks from the Red Line, 2 blocks from a 600' building, in the shadow of Hancock. What is his motivation for this? If not this site, then where exactly? Just about every other lot closer in has a proposal already.

In my opinion, Ald. Reilly's judgement needs to be chalenged on this, and quickly. With the buildout of the Loop and Streeterville, if sites like that are going to be made off limits to high-rises, then this boom is going to come to an abrupt end.

Development will end because market forces and land costs won't allow a small building, and the politicians won't allow tall ones.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Development will end because market forces and land costs won't allow a small building, and the politicians won't allow tall ones.

We'll become Boston, but without the olde worlde charme. But I agree, everyone should let Mr. Reilly know that it is unwise to force a developer to think small on such a prime site that could otherwise support very high-density, not only from an infrastructure standpoint but also contextually, with several 30+ story highrises nearby. The more density in that area, the better, so it revives that somewhat moribund retail stretch of Chicago Avenue,

[email protected]

[Dan in Chicago]

I got three heights today:

1600 Museum Park: 357'-3" (revised downward from 361')
Glashaus: 280'-3"
1555 South Wabash: 177'-8"

Roof heights (rounded to the nearest foot) for each are: 355', 280', and 176'.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

^The Esquire isn't worth landmarking.

Yeah, I have to agree. In this case the replacement is better.

However, I'm concerned about the Oak Street retail. Even though these are going to be high end stores, I'm afraid that we will end up with dull designs instead of the stuff you see in flagship stores elsewhere. I'm not sure if this will be the fault of the developer, demands of the NIMBYs, or what Reilly thinks the neighborhood wants.

[aaron38]

We also need to let Reiley know that oil hit $100 a barrel today, and the economic survival of this nation may very well depend on getting as many people as close to mass transit as possible, to decouple GDP from transport energy costs. We can't afford to let NIMBYism hem in the city core.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080102/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

[harryc]

Never noticed this one before, Jan 02

[the urban politician]

Reilly must have some sort of reason for opposing a highrise on that site, other than being a butt-face

[Mr Downtown]

Oak is a street of small-scale retail buildings, most three stories. The Esquire is already the largest building other than the bookend highrises. Just from an urban design standpoint, it seems wise to preserve the small-scale boutique fabric along there.

Modern high-end residential buildings or hotels are not very compatible with walkable retail streetscapes, since they insist on a curbside dropoff, a parking entrance and exit, and a big lobby. The marketing people feel that high-end buyers will not want to live over a store or restaurant. Better for the city as a whole to encourage more $500/foot retail along Oak, and put the highrises on State or Dearborn.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Oak is a street of small-scale retail buildings, most three stories. The Esquire is already the largest building other than the bookend highrises. Just from an urban design standpoint, it seems wise to preserve the small-scale boutique fabric along there.

^ But the issue at hand is Reilly's apparent opposition to a highrise at Clark and Chestnut. He actually seems open to a 12-story building replacing the Esquire, as discussed in the article

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Better for the city as a whole to encourage more $500/foot retail along Oak, and put the highrises on State or Dearborn.

I would say "or Clark" but Reilly thinks otherwise.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The marketing people feel that high-end buyers will not want to live over a store or restaurant. Better for the city as a whole to encourage more $500/foot retail along Oak, and put the highrises on State or Dearborn.

That seems contrary to all the developments we've seen to date. Some of the highest price points in the city are in towers like Trump and Waterview, where the high-end buyers will be living over full hotels and spas and restaurants.
Many towers make a specific point to mention all the amenities in the building.
Why would first floor retail be a detraction?

[ardecila]

First floor retail isn't a distraction - it's like Mr. Downtown said. The Esquire site is rather small, with a limited street frontage. It's also mid-block. When the hotel or residential tower decides to build a drop-off circle, it severely limits the space for retail. If the developer omits the driveway, it becomes harder to get a boutique hotel tenant.

On a different site, the driveway could have been moved to the side of the building and the front preserved for retail. That's not possible here since it's mid-block.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ But the issue at hand is Reilly's apparent opposition to a highrise at Clark and Chestnut. He actually seems open to a 12-story building replacing the Esquire, as discussed in the article

Yeah, and unless the intersection has changed much since Google's satellite capture of it, I can't see any valid reason for wanting to scale down. There are already a couple of high rises right there, and two ridiculous parking lots.

About Oak Street: I totally get the idea of wanting to preserve the vibe of a place. But isn't that what good design is all about? Can't a talented architect figure out a way to contribute to the streetlife while creating, you know, a sublime, visually low-impact high rise? The parameters here seem to be: the developers want to make bank, which is their right as they own the property; the city's primary concern is that whatever gets built fits in with the existing fabric. Devising solutions to problems like this are what good architects are trained to do!

Why are all players so jaded (incompetent?) that they don't see this as an opportunity for something really successful?

[honte]

^ If we had any confidence they would hire a great - and I mean truly great - architect. Chances are at least 10:1 we will get schlock instead.

No one seems concerned about creating or having great architecture these days, be it government, developers, or residents for that matter. Just protect my views, limit the density, contribute to the right fund, blah blah.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

^ If we had any confidence they would hire a great - and I mean truly great - architect. Chances are at least 10:1 we will get schlock instead.

No one seems concerned about creating or having great architecture these days, be it government, developers, or residents for that matter. Just protect my views, limit the density, contribute to the right fund, blah blah.

I definitely agree about the lack of appreciation of architecture. The reality of the situation is all of their problems could be solved with good design, but none of the parties involved seem to understand that. Architecture -- and its transformative effects -- is of secondary concern. (Come to think of it, after a lot of what went down as innovative and avant-garde a few decades ago, perhaps architects aren't exactly guilt-free. Topic for another thread, another day...)

[Busy Bee]

^The Esquire isn't worth landmarking.

This is what was said about many a lost and lamented structure.