CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[the urban politician]

^ Don't worry, in 30-40 years projects like this will be subletted so that groups of individuals will share these mega-units. The market always finds a way...

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I suppose it could be worse...

I think its great, I love it when they build separate garages from the buildings because the garage can easily be demolished and replaced with a shiny new building at a future date!

[honte]

^ Actually, I find the aesthetic and overall design of this to be superior to the hotel project.

[budman]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

Just to keep things clear, Vector at K Station is the one that recently started construction. I went by the site on Sunday, and no foundation work has begun on Alta. I'll check 565 Quincy on Thursday. Also, 501 North Clark has been added to Emporis as building 321830.

^Dan, are you referring to the eastern portion of the lot on Clinton between Kinzie and the railroad tracks that is being used as a parking lot/staging area for the construction as the Vector site that is not yet underconstruction? My understanding was that that eastern portion of the parcel was not going to be built on as a result of the right-of-way that will be kept by the city (and therefore both towers were going to be built on the western portion of the parcel that is currently under construction)? Do I have that wrong?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by budman

^Dan, are you referring to the eastern portion of the lot on Clinton between Kinzie and the railroad tracks that is being used as a parking lot/staging area for the construction as the Vector site that is not yet underconstruction? My understanding was that that eastern portion of the parcel was not going to be built on as a result of the right-of-way that will be kept by the city (and therefore both towers were going to be built on the western portion of the parcel that is currently under construction)? Do I have that wrong?

The far eastern portion of that site, along Clinton between Kinzie and the Milwaukee Road tracks, is being preserved for an eventual (underground/trenched) station on the downtown BRT line

[10023]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

15-20 story building with only 2 units per floor. I'm guessing they'll probably also include 2.5-3 parking spots per unit. What a disgusting waste of a prime development site. Apparently, Reilly was "impressed" with the proposal. Thanks alot, Alderman Hack.

3 parking spaces per unit? Why? Is that normal?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by 10023

3 parking spaces per unit? Why? Is that normal?

For ultra-luxury units? Yes, at least for penthouse units at these sorts of "exclusive" downtown residences. I would assume average accross the whole building will be in the 2.5/unit range, as several guest/valet parking spaces will undoubtedly be included as well.

[a chicago bearcat]

Lynn Becker sources hydrogen on his Solstice article

"(factoids courtesy of I am hydrogen's post on a November community meeting on skyscraper city.com.)"

[tate64]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

15-20 story building with only 2 units per floor. I'm guessing they'll probably also include 2.5-3 parking spots per unit. What a disgusting waste of a prime development site. Apparently, Reilly was "impressed" with the proposal. Thanks alot, Alderman Hack.

RIP Cineplex Odeon

As someone who has lived next to this site on Chestnut St. for 20 years now- this new proposal is NOT a waste of a prime development site as you say. I don't know how you came to that conclusion Viva but have you spent any amount of time in this neigborhood?

There's already a good mix of high-rise buildings here along with mid-rise and town-homes to suit this mostly residential neighborhood. There's a 40+ story apartment tower at Chestnut and Lasalle and a 30+ story apartment tower at Chestnut and Clark. I'm happy with 15 to 20 stories because it will break up the building heights in the area nicely.

Because this site is part of a PUD (planned unit development) any developers of this parcel will need more or less to get our approval of any plans they have before it's a go- It's really much more complicated then that but those of you who ever want more info on this can personally PM me.

Viva so for you to go off on Alderman Reilly on this project is ignorant. He had nothing to do with the creation of this PUD back in the late 1970's and early '80s. His hands along with the developers are tied behind their backs more or less on this one.

[10023]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

For ultra-luxury units? Yes, at least for penthouse units at these sorts of "exclusive" downtown residences. I would assume average accross the whole building will be in the 2.5/unit range, as several guest/valet parking spaces will undoubtedly be included as well.

Not here. That's completely unnecessary.

And come to think of it, my dad lives in Chicago and has a rowhouse on the Gold Coast (no parking) and my stepmother still has her 1 bedroom condo on LSD in a very nice building (1 space).

I don't think developers should even be allowed to build that much parking.

[tate64]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not here. That's completely unnecessary.

And come to think of it, my dad lives in Chicago and has a rowhouse on the Gold Coast (no parking) and my stepmother still has her 1 bedroom condo on LSD in a very nice building (1 space).

I don't think developers should even be allowed to build that much parking.

Just so you know- this proposed building needs to provide parking for certain area residences that have no off street parking available to them and that's why the ratio is higher then average.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by tate64

As someone who has lived next to this site on Chestnut St. for 20 years now- this new proposal is NOT a waste of a prime development site as you say. I don't know how you came to that conclusion Viva but have you spent any amount of time in this neigborhood?

There's already a good mix of high-rise buildings here along with mid-rise and town-homes to suit this mostly residential neighborhood. There's a 40+ story apartment tower at Chestnut and Lasalle and a 30+ story apartment tower at Chestnut and Clark. I'm happy with 15 to 20 stories because it will break up the building heights in the area nicely.

Because this site is part of a PUD (planned unit development) any developers of this parcel will need more or less to get our approval of any plans they have before it's a go- It's really much more complicated then that but those of you who ever want more info on this can personally PM me.

Viva so for you to go off on Alderman Reilly on this project is ignorant. He had nothing to do with the creation of this PUD back in the late 1970's and early '80s. His hands along with the developers are tied behind their backs more or less on this one.

Chicago Avenue is moribund from Dearborn to Wells; no retail livelihood. What retail spots are present, such as in the gorgeous old college building at Clark/Chicago, are vacant. There is inadequate residential density to support the type of vibrancy that this location, just blocks from transit, employment centers, and tourist destinations, deserves. This site was prime for development because it did not mean the redevelopment of a historic building resource (it did, if you count the old Deco Post Office turned crime-ridden crummy theatre whose days were irrevocably numbered anyway). Such sites should be built to maximum reasonable density, as soon there will be no developable sites that won't cost the neighborhood more of its historic building stock or character.

This site should have been a 30 story tower, with ~250-300 units, sited on the southeast corner of the lot, so as not to crowd the Chestnut Tower and 100 W. Chestnut rental towers nearby. FAR would be approximately 10-12. The parking podium could be only a couple stories tall, given that retail spots aren't needed right here (as opposed to along Chicago, which needs all the help it can get).

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by tate64

Just so you know- this proposed building needs to provide parking for certain area residences that have no off street parking available to them

Philosophically speaking, why does this building "need" to provide this parking under force of law? Why do people think they have a constitutional right to off-street parking, subsidized on the back of the average Chicagoan taxpayer who forgos the opportunity cost of using such prime downtown land more efficiently to generate more tax revenue?

[Mr Downtown]

Ummm, the people parking there will be paying property taxes on those parking spaces.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Ummm, the people parking there will be paying property taxes on those parking spaces.

What's assessed at a higher value per square foot, a parking spot or residential/commercial space?

(EDIT: I'm otherwise done on harping this general thread of discussion, anyone who wants to continue can PM me)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The far eastern portion of that site, along Clinton between Kinzie and the Milwaukee Road tracks, is being preserved for an eventual (underground/trenched) station on the downtown BRT line

Actually, I believe that the buildings will come right up to Clinton. The preserved right of way is along the south edge of the site, where space is being saved for 2 high-speed rail tracks, to eventually lead into a ramp to the underground West Loop Transportation Center.

Even if the WLTC is never built, it leaves options for transit planners in the future.

[honte]

Originally Posted by tate64

There's already a good mix of high-rise buildings here along with mid-rise and town-homes to suit this mostly residential neighborhood. There's a 40+ story apartment tower at Chestnut and Lasalle and a 30+ story apartment tower at Chestnut and Clark. I'm happy with 15 to 20 stories because it will break up the building heights in the area nicely.

Gosh, call me a fool, but it sounds like a 60-story building would really break up the existing building heights nicely.

In any case, thanks for chiming in with the neighborhood side of the story. I was not aware of the restrictions on the site.

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The far eastern portion of that site, along Clinton between Kinzie and the Milwaukee Road tracks, is being preserved for an eventual (underground/trenched) station on the downtown BRT line

Well, that is good news. Perhaps people will use the park and the little amphitheatre someday.

[10023]

Originally Posted by tate64

Just so you know- this proposed building needs to provide parking for certain area residences that have no off street parking available to them and that's why the ratio is higher then average.

Does it need to? Do these residences need off street parking? I live in a nice Manhattan neighborhood and could buy very nice car for cash this weekend if I really wanted to, but it's not necessary living in the city.

More parking means more driving, more driving means a less pedestrian friendly urban environment, greater oil usage, and more pollution. Not to mention the fact that parking structures are very unattractive.

[Steely Dan]

^ once again chitown, you're drifting off-topic on the parking/driving issue.

this thread is for discussion of highrise projects in chicagoland. if you want to discuss why it is or isn't necessary to own/drive/park a car in the city, TAKE IT TO A NEW THREAD.