CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Alliance]

Wow. That went under the radar (least to me).

[i_am_hydrogen]

An interesting then (2003) and now (2008) photo thread with many recent projects:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=23572554#post23572554

[10023]

Originally Posted by gct13

gct13 - 7/25/2008

Hotel Palomar

What's going on across the street to the west?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by 10023

What's going on across the street to the west?

a mixed-use midrise by weiss architects

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by 10023

What's going on across the street to the west?

The current construction across the street is for the red line. ^^^ The mid-rise has yet to begin, that lot is still a functioning parking lot.

From cityofchicago.org

The $67 million project is rebuilding the mezzanine and platform at the station, the Red Line’s eight busiest with more than 8,000 passengers daily. The project will expand the mezzanine more than 2,000 square feet, and nearly double the entering/exiting capacity by adding fare turnstiles.

The renovation will be the first major update since the station’s construction in the late 1940s. The design will follow the theme established in previous Red Line subway station renovations at Chicago/State, Lake/Randolph and Jackson.


Among the project highlights:

New granite floors and stairs
New glazed tile walls
New stainless steel light trays and energy-efficient lighting
Three new elevators and one new escalator
New customer-assistant kiosks
New CTA communications and speaker system

[takascar]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Also, what about 161 W. Kinzie? Anybody walk by recently? It looked as though site prep might be near several weeks ago....

Nope - Nothing large scale yet. I live about a block from there.

They put up the canopy around the middle of June and haven't started work
yet. I think the parking lot is still open, but Friday they did have the entrance blocked off for a bit

Today, parkers are back.

The only work that I've seen done since the canopy was installed were some electricians running some thick (2" or better) conduit along the wall that makes up the Wells St. elevation.

Perhaps its electrical service for the construction. Will keep everyone updated (With pics when possible).

[10023]

This is sort of a side comment but generally related to this thread. Does anyone else think it's unfortunate that Chicago developments, even where there is no alley, are rarely flush with the building next door? I don't think there's an alley between that midrise rendered above and Rock Bottom Brewery, so why aren't they flush with the lot line? Would create a much more attractive streetscape if they were.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

a mixed-use midrise by weiss architects

Another Reilly-fied panderhack crap development. Way to make use of the 12.0 FAR allowable under the DX-12 mixed use zoning of the site... Assuming floors 3-4 are parking, this looks like what, about an FAR of 6-7? The building is half what it should be, in that location.

The westmost parcel, about a third of the development site, is zoned DX-7 (FAR 7) so I'm assuming that's largely how Reilly nailed the poor landowner/developer (aside from the usual extortion techniques of holding up permits, etc.). The eastern two parcels are DX-12.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don't think there's an alley between that midrise rendered above and Rock Bottom Brewery, so why aren't they flush with the lot line? Would create a much more attractive streetscape if they were.

you are mistaken, there is an east-west public alley bisecting that block between rock bottom brewery and the site in question. maybe it would be more attractive if the two buildings were flush, but going after that public right of way is probably billions of times more trouble for the developer than it's worth.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Another Reilly-fied panderhack crap development. Way to make use of the 12.0 FAR allowable under the DX-12 mixed use zoning of the site... Assuming floors 3-4 are parking, this looks like what, about an FAR of 6-7? The building is half what it should be, in that location.

The westmost parcel, about a third of the development site, is zoned DX-7 (FAR 7) so I'm assuming that's largely how Reilly nailed the poor landowner/developer (aside from the usual extortion techniques of holding up permits, etc.). The eastern two parcels are DX-12.

Reilly is responsible for that not being bigger? I mean, it's not a terrible building but I agree more density would be expected on the same block as a subway station. Where did you see that Reilly influenced it down?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by emathias

Reilly is responsible for that not being bigger? I mean, it's not a terrible building but I agree more density would be expected on the same block as a subway station. Where did you see that Reilly influenced it down?

Why would they hold that fight in public? A smart developer plays ball early, and doesn't launch a project publicly until he knows he's got it in the bag (so as not to waste his resources on legal fees). There are plenty of large DOA proposals in this town that never even see the (public) light of day, but I can't go into specifics so you'll just have to treat the remark as hearsay.

[takascar]

Originally Posted by takascar

Nope - Nothing large scale yet. I live about a block from there.

They put up the canopy around the middle of June and haven't started work
yet. I think the parking lot is still open, but Friday they did have the entrance blocked off for a bit

Today, parkers are back.

The only work that I've seen done since the canopy was installed were some electricians running some thick (2" or better) conduit along the wall that makes up the Wells St. elevation.

Perhaps its electrical service for the construction. Will keep everyone updated (With pics when possible).

On my way home this very evening - saw fencing up around the site and the parking lot empty - All it took for me to post a comment that there was no activity on the site and it suddenly appears! Go figure.

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Why would they hold that fight in public? A smart developer plays ball early, and doesn't launch a project publicly until he knows he's got it in the bag (so as not to waste his resources on legal fees). There are plenty of large DOA proposals in this town that never even see the (public) light of day, but I can't go into specifics so you'll just have to treat the remark as hearsay.

If you recall, there was an earlier proposal for this site that was even smaller. I don't know what the owner is thinking nor what happened politically, but I am not sure if Reilly is entirely to blame. The current proposal is better looking and taller than what I remember.

It's a corner, right - we should argue that it must be the tallest building on the block to meet the strict guidelines of "good design."

Also, I want to say for the record that I sincerely hope Aqua's success does not lead to a trend of buildings like this one with random, wavy elements on them.

[Tom In Chicago]

. . .

[wrab]

^ For those of you not in the area, very strong thunderstorms (some tornadic) are moving through Chicagoland, along with strong straight-line wind gusts. Lots of trees down on power lines, etc. by the Armitage Brown Line L where I am. Hats off to all of the safety forces that will dealing with this mess.

Let us all hope that the damages to persons & property are minimal.

[Tom In Chicago]

Yeah. . . doesn't look like much. . . just lots of lightning and thunder. . . at least in the Loop. . . we did get tornado sirens though so perhaps there was something. . .

[SolarWind]

Originally Posted by gct13

gct13 - 7/25/2008

Hotel Palomar

Great shot, gct13! You framed it perfectly with the crane.

[gct13]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

Great shot, gct13! You framed it perfectly with the crane.

Thanks SolarWind.. Glad I could contribute an angle that hadn't been covered yet by all the great photographers here

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

The current proposal is better looking and taller than what I remember.

It's definitely not a bad looking proposal; pretty attractive, actually. It would make a great building to anchor neighborhood TODs, for example, or as continued infill in West Loop or South Loop. It's very wrong for that site in River North, for a number of reasons.

On one hand, it's 100 times better than a surface parking lot. Maybe 200. On the other hand, we're coming up on a shortage of developable parking lots in good areas downtown, which means future development will mean increase demolition pressure - and not much around there is landmarked (particularly concerned about the mostly-preserved stretches along Hubbard and Clark). In other words, a crappy development is a double whammy of a missed opportunity and pushing future demand for square footage into nearby lots.

[honte]

^ Preaching to the choir, my friend. Nobody wants that area landmarked more than I do, for exactly those reasons. Ditto for the West Loop.

My point is solely that I don't think Reilly is to blame for everything that conceivably goes wrong in development. He can't force them to build bigger, nor can he force them to use their heads and wait a while if that's their bag. He can try to force it shorter, but I don't have any clear evidence that this happened here.