CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

1. Is there confirmation that the Cedar Hotel redevelopment will save the facade and front plaza/dining space of the old building? The building is a total pit but the terra cotta on the facade is pretty great.

As far as I know. I pulled this from the Gold Coast Development News thread at SSC:

Hotel faces wrecking ball

December 28, 2006
By FELICIA DECHTER | STAFF WRITER
A proposal to raze the historic, Near North Side Cedar Hotel, 1112 -1118 N. State St. is raising the ire of community members and preservationists...

In keeping with the neighborhood's "vibrant" character, Mullady said, the State Street frontage will include the restaurant and hotel lobby. The development was designed to incorporate the Cedar's existing brick and terra-cotta masonry facade, she said, and both the facade and setback will remain as is.

[spyguy]

from H+P's website

Different rendering of 111 West Chestnut (a little bit taller)


And a proposal for Huron and Orleans

[VivaLFuego]

111 W. Chestnut has great potential; I hope they can make the economics work in this market to get it built. Even better if they can squeeze Reilly to let them add a teensy bit more density as they appear to be trying to do

Huron/Orleans...nothing special other than the fact it replaces a wretch-inducing block-long parking lot. The overall form seems appropriate, with a FAR in the 7-9 range in a taller/slender tower. The base/podium looks, well....like a base/podium. Blech. The pool right next to the L tracks is pretty amusing.

[museumparktom]

Vetro - Wells Street Wall


Roosevelt Collection from Polk


Pacific Garden Mission Coming Down - Library Tower behind


8th and State


Astoria Tower


Lexington Tower - Michigan and Cermack


Museum Point Tower 2


1600 MP



Marquee on Michigan - Looks worse than the picture if thats possible


Michigan Ave Tower2 & 1400 MP


Michigan Ave Tower 2



1400 MP



OMPW


Trump from 14th & Indiana

[emathias]

Originally Posted by spyguy

from H+P's website
...
And a proposal for Huron and Orleans

I live on Huron a block and a half east of that site and like that design okay, but ...

I have to say that the design above is disappointing compared to the 300 W Huron design by Brininstool + Lynch that was abandoned several years ago. I wish they'd resurrect that.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

I have to agree. When I visited Sonnenschein last year, I found the floor plans confusing and out-dated. Getting to the library involved a circumlocutionary journey through random hallways and incoherently laid out offices.

I worked in one of the full-floorplate offices and spent a reasonable amount of time in the Metropolitan Club space an visited offices in other other floors in Sears.

I believe Sonnenschein is on a level that's sort of a cross shape, which would potentially create some odd routes just because of the shape of the exterior. However, I don't think that there is anything else that would force there to be exceptionally "circumlocutionary" journeys unless your interior architect had other priorities (which could happen in any building) or security needs of the firm itself created security boundaries that excluded certain routes.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Couldn't be more inaccurate. Yes, it does need to be modernized since 93 when they last renovated. 93 was only 20 years after Sears was finished and they hadn't gone through the information revolution yet. 2008 is 15 years after 93 and we have gone through much more significant technology changes than in the period 73-93. Sears is nowhere near Class A office space and that is why everyone is moving out. Maybe 5 years ago people were leaving due to terrorism, but I think most firms have gotten over that irrational behavior by now, most are going elsewhere where they can pay a little bit more and get a much nicer space.

Also, if I am so wrong about it needing a rennovation, then why did the new owners announce plans to do major renovations on the Sears just a few months ago?

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2007/11/iconic-sears-to.html

The link you give is about greening up the Sears Tower, which a lot of places are doing independent from other kinds of renovations. I'm not sure I'd categorize them as "major renovations." Also, any large building is going to always have some sort of renovation in the works - a tweak here, a tweak there. No one is talking about a $600 million rehab like at the Empire State Building. I think the majority of the problems at the Sears Tower are rooted post-9/11 responses. Goldman Sachs left because of 9/11, explicitly. Even others who didn't leave for 9/11 explicitly, it weighed in their decision. It also impacted the building indirectly because of the security they put in place. Until they figured out how to segregate the offices from the retail, their security decimated their restaurant and retail business, causing most to close, which reduces your building amenities, reduces desirability, reduces rent and becomes a bit of a downward spiral. With their finally figuring out security, their retailers are coming back, but it may be a while before the Tower can fully overcome the stigma of being so well-known in a post-9/11 world.

[honte]

Originally Posted by emathias

I live on Huron a block and a half east of that site and like that design okay, but ...

I have to say that the design above is disappointing compared to the 300 W Huron design by Brininstool + Lynch that was abandoned several years ago. I wish they'd resurrect that.

Word. That was one of B+L's more interesting high-rise proposals.

[VivaLFuego]

Marquee Michigan is just awful. It's really giving Grand Plaza a run for its money. The best thing I can say about it is that it has aggressively low price points providing some diversity in the South Loop marketplace, but that could have been provided in a somewhat less sinful building. Even the comparable (pricewise) Prison on State, er Vision, is substantially less offensive.

[pip]

yeah but I love the balconies

[pip]

Commission Approves Height for $1B Towers

CHICAGO-Central Station LLC has received approval from the Chicago Plan Commission to increase the heights for two of the buildings of the Museum Park neighborhood of the Central Station development. The four-building condo project is being developed by a joint venture between the Fogelson Cos., based here, and Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises Inc. The estimated cost for the four buildings is “in excess of $1 billion,” says Gerald Fogelson, co-chairman and CEO of the self-named firm.

http://www.globest.com/news/1187_1187/chicago/171879-1.html

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by spyguy

And a proposal for Huron and Orleans

Yea, another stick-tower-on-huge-podium. I hate to say it, but crap like this makes me understand the West Loop Nimby's point of view. If this building were limited to half it's height, the developer would have to build out to the lot lines, and we'd get something that actually contribuited to the urban fabric, that felt dense. This feels sparse and empty.
Personally, I'd rather have 12 stories over the whole lot than 24 stories on one half and 2 on the other.

[Alliance]

What? A taller thinner tower...

...adds height
...increases density
...minimizes shadows
...looks better

What gives NIMBYs credibility are poorly designed developements and drab buildings. Better a 24 stroy tower than an obese and suffocating turd of a building.


Though, the base does need work.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Alliance

What? A taller thinner tower...

...adds height
...increases density
...minimizes shadows
...looks better

What gives NIMBYs credibility are poorly designed developements and drab buildings. Better a 24 stroy tower than an obese and suffocating turd of a building.


Though, the base does need work.

I don't think anyone disputes tall and thin has great advantages. The problem is that many new developments in Chicago manage to ruin the idea of tall and thin by sticking a tall, thin tower in the middle of an artless, space-wasting, squat building.

To be honest, I find the Huron and Orleans proposal to be far more objectionable than your average parking podium + tower. If the podium had a smaller footprint (as is common with podiums) and played better off the architecture of the building, it wouldn't be nearly as bad. As it is, it uses enough space to fit two tall and thin towers and uses that space very poorly, detracting greatly from the street-scape and urban environment. Similarly, had they made the podium more of a building in its own right (built out to the streetwall, retail on the ground floors, 4-5 stories of built out space, etc.) it could have contributed to the urban fabric, used that space in a meaningful way AND contributed a nice tower to the neighborhood.

To me, this podium completely offsets any benefit derived from the tall and thin nature of the tower. It will kill street life on that block and waste valuable urban real estate, even if the tower offsets that waste with higher density.

Taft

[Taft]

Or another idea: pay to put the damn thing below ground and use the free space of the tower as a plaza or green space. Is TIF/park/city money ever used to facilitate things like this? Seems like a good use of that money to me, though maybe not for this particular project.

Taft

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Alliance

What? A taller thinner tower...
...adds height
...increases density
...minimizes shadows
...looks better

As you've said yourself, 'height is nothing without design', and the podium is part of the design. I'm looking at the whole package. And on the whole it's bad.

Does it really increase density? If you make the tower taller but leave half the lot empty, the density of the lot is unchanged. Now if there was a second tower on the other half, then density would be increased by building taller.

Shadows? Unless someone's sunbathing in the middle of Huron, it's a non issue. I don't find streetwalls to be suffocating at all.

Looks better? Again, as an overall package, the podium ruins whatever asthetic the tower may have, and the tower's too boring to make up for the base.


If we're going to plop a thin tower on a large base, then we need to bring back the art of tapering up to the tower, which is why art deco massing works so well.

[VivaLFuego]

No, it doesn't increase density, it maintains it but shifts the form of that density. That is the whole friggin point of maintaining FAR but going tall and thin: reduce shadows, protect views, etc. while keeping the same density. From the developers standpoint, it usually allows for more valuable units, as well. Notice that even the 60s-era residential towers along the lakefront in Chicago often follow the same tower-over-podium design for these reasons (albeit generally with a lower parking ratio between 0.8:1 and 1:1 depending on unit mix); these were built in the old R7 and R8 zones which had very high allowable FARs, back when they existed before the NIMBYs freaked out and eliminated the high-density classifications.

To build two or more tall and thin towers on that piece of land would violate the FAR: it's not an option. If you've got an FAR of 7.0, you can build 7 stories tall to the lot lines, or raise portions of the lot and lower others. One could theoretically do 2 midrises connected by a base, or 1 highrise on a podium.

Personal opinion is that FAR is a better arbiter of allowable density than WLCO's stupid and arbitrary height limits. Though most of the West Loop is zoned for lower FAR than River North, so the situations aren't exactly comparable: River North is at least somewhat reasonably zoned, whereas West Loop is way underzoned given its location, so any developer seeking to develop based on the intrinsic value of the land (e.g. warranting some highrises) has a major uphill battle to increase the underlying zoning of his PD. With the exception of vary large development sites (e.g. the Sundance theatre) there are a very limited number of sites in West Loop where the underlying zoning would allow enough FAR to make even 115ft plausible.

Of course, zoning in Chicago is approximately 92% meaningless as a planning tool and more appropriately considered just another form of political power...making much of the academic discussion moot. It's applied very rigidly, except when it isn't, which is pretty often.

But yeah, the base as shown in that Huron/Orleans rendering is rather... uninspired. To put it charitably.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Taft

I don't think anyone disputes tall and thin has great advantages. The problem is that many new developments in Chicago manage to ruin the idea of tall and thin by sticking a tall, thin tower in the middle of an artless, space-wasting, squat building.

To be honest, I find the Huron and Orleans proposal to be far more objectionable than your average parking podium + tower. If the podium had a smaller footprint (as is common with podiums) and played better off the architecture of the building, it wouldn't be nearly as bad. As it is, it uses enough space to fit two tall and thin towers and uses that space very poorly, detracting greatly from the street-scape and urban environment. Similarly, had they made the podium more of a building in its own right (built out to the streetwall, retail on the ground floors, 4-5 stories of built out space, etc.) it could have contributed to the urban fabric, used that space in a meaningful way AND contributed a nice tower to the neighborhood.

To me, this podium completely offsets any benefit derived from the tall and thin nature of the tower. It will kill street life on that block and waste valuable urban real estate, even if the tower offsets that waste with higher density.

Taft

First off, I would like to point out that I said the podium does need work. People always seem to miss the details.

Certainly making it taller would be better, but I don't know if this area really needs a 5 story podium, but a 2 or 3 story one with less wall and more architectural connection to the tower would be better. But, overall I think the concept of the podium is fine.

Podiums contribute to the walkability and street level density. I'm all for them if done properly. I'd rather have a lot filled and towers given room to breathe than awkward lots, parcels, and small plazas that give a limited contribution to streetlife. You start getting the concept raised blocks with towers on top. And yeah, certainly I'd like 2 tall towers and not 1, but thats not going to happen in the current situation. But better one imo than a squat heavy building...even if the podium is less thanspectacular.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by emathias

The link you give is about greening up the Sears Tower, which a lot of places are doing independent from other kinds of renovations. I'm not sure I'd categorize them as "major renovations." Also, any large building is going to always have some sort of renovation in the works - a tweak here, a tweak there. No one is talking about a $600 million rehab like at the Empire State Building. I think the majority of the problems at the Sears Tower are rooted post-9/11 responses. Goldman Sachs left because of 9/11, explicitly. Even others who didn't leave for 9/11 explicitly, it weighed in their decision. It also impacted the building indirectly because of the security they put in place. Until they figured out how to segregate the offices from the retail, their security decimated their restaurant and retail business, causing most to close, which reduces your building amenities, reduces desirability, reduces rent and becomes a bit of a downward spiral. With their finally figuring out security, their retailers are coming back, but it may be a while before the Tower can fully overcome the stigma of being so well-known in a post-9/11 world.

I don't that Sears experienced some leasing troubles in the years after 9-11, the thing is, its 7 years later now, there has not been another attack, people are chill again...

These are hardly going to be "tweaks" unless you consider installing completely new air conditioning systems, ripping out the old insulation and putting new in, and possibly installing turbines on the roof "tweaks"... If they rip the insulation out, they probably have to redo the interior walls as well, in which case they will probably re carpet and re-ceiling the place too. See this article, I'll try to find more.

http://afreshsqueeze.com/chicago/articleDtl.php?id=47bf6bdb882fc


One other thing, the Sears will never have a rennovation that is as costly as the one done to the ESB. Do you know why? Because Sears was built in an entirely different generation of buildings. Modernist boxes tend to be extremely cheep and easy to retrofit since everything basically snaps together and is very free-form in how it was designed. Compare this to a deco tower with all the craftmanship, artwork, and masonry that was involved with its construction.

[simcityaustin]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I don't that Sears experienced some leasing troubles in the years after 9-11, the thing is, its 7 years later now, there has not been another attack, people are chill again...

This is simply not true. I know people who said they would never work in the Sears Tower. Sure, maybe fears have been lessened, but to say it's not a major concern is just wrong. How can you enter a building that has been a target in the past, and not have it on your mind. I think it's delusional not think it's to a major consideration.


EDIT - And I know this is true b/c I my friends in Chicago said they wouldn't want to work there, and same goes for their companies.