CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

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.

^ In all fairness, that same demolition pressure will eventually occur regardless of whether tall buildings are built on existing lots or not. One can make an argument (and I sure won't) that putting a cap on heights may actually discourage developers from tearing down historic buildings.

Of course, that didn't occur with the Esquire Theatre, but I'm guessing that is because the new owners simply didn't see a theatre in that site's future

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by honte

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.

Oh no. How prescient of you. I can already hear a future real estate agent giving her umpteenth tour of an umpteenth building feebly imitating it: "...and this unit has the soaking tub, the chef's kitchen, and the aqua balconies..."

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by honte

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.

OMP...OMPW...GP3...Half of LSE...

*facepalm*

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

OMP...OMPW...GP3...Half of LSE...

*facepalm*

with the exception of the GP3 rendering that we've seen, what does any of that have to do with what honte is talking about???

[denizen467]

Anyone have an idea whether high-rises being built 4 decades later have windows more, less, or no differently susceptible to high winds?


Severe storms rattle Chicago, suburbs
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-weather-web-aug05,0,1572030.story

...

A window reportedly broke on the 40th floor of the John Hancock Center at 875 N. Michigan Ave. Chestnut Street and Michigan Avenue were closed to traffic. ... Winds of 94 m.p.h. were reported at the Harrison-Dever Crib, about 3 miles offshore in Lake Michigan.

[museumparktom]

I think a better example of Honte's fear is the 15+ Mies designs we have. Picture all of his brown boxes in with Aqua treatment. Gang gone wild. I love her work and can't wait to see another building of her design. In fact, I would have liked to seen one of the Grant Park South Wall buildings been a Gang. But, one of the elements that make Chicago the architectural jewel of the world is the diversity of our buildings.

[aaron38]

08-04-08 From Adler
Scroll ------------------->

[X-fib2]

Originally Posted by museumparktom

I think a better example of Honte's fear is the 15+ Mies designs we have. Picture all of his brown boxes in with Aqua treatment. Gang gone wild. I love her work and can't wait to see another building of her design. In fact, I would have liked to seen one of the Grant Park South Wall buildings been a Gang. But, one of the elements that make Chicago the architectural jewel of the world is the diversity of our buildings.

We seem to seeing a trend towards geometric varitations. Alternatives to the strict rectangular box. Acqua, OMP, CS, W-A, etc. I think this is good, but as you say, as long as we don't see a dozen carbon copies pop up!

[Chicago Shawn]

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.

As far as I know, Reilly had nothing to do with the size of the building. The squat size is probably because the land owner does not want to put up any risk while developing the property. Looks decent, but needs at least 3 times more density to be appropiate for the site above a Red Line station that us tax payers are pouring $67 million into.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

As far as I know, Reilly had nothing to do with the size of the building. The squat size is probably because the land owner does not want to put up any risk while developing the property. Looks decent, but needs at least 3 times more density to be appropiate for the site above a Red Line station that us tax payers are pouring $67 million into.

Who's the developer here? Is the only info/leak so far this render from the architect?

If they wanted to avoid risk, they'd be better off selling the property to a developer who could shoulder that risk and pay a commensurate price per FAR-square-foot for the lot.

I'd be fine with double this density, so it at least roughly conforms with the zoning of the lot.

[SolarWind]

August 6, 2008

[honte]

^ This one should have a decent bit of impact from the River, visible over the top of the Engineering Building, adding another change to our improving river scene.

[chicubs111]

I 200 west lake was taller, we need some more 700ft plus building in the central loop core.

[SolarWind]

August 6, 2008

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Who's the developer here? Is the only info/leak so far this render from the architect?

If they wanted to avoid risk, they'd be better off selling the property to a developer who could shoulder that risk and pay a commensurate price per FAR-square-foot for the lot.

I'd be fine with double this density, so it at least roughly conforms with the zoning of the lot.

I'm not sure how this project is structured. I think that the owner of the site (AT&T?) wants to develop it themselves, so they brought in Verdi Construction to design-build the project.

Here's another rendering I found:

[VivaLFuego]

^Could be FAR closer to 8 depending on the setbacks of the residential portion. I'm guessing we won't hear much more about it for up to a year until the CTA construction wraps up. Unfortunately, it's only 11 stories so technically shouldn't be discussed any further in this forum.

In more on-topic discussion, I'm quite liking how 353 N. Clark is turning out. The curtain wall is both photogenic and attractive in person. The renderings didn't really do it justice. Kudos to the developers on this one. It nicely complements the Quaker Oats building.

[SolarWind]

August 6, 2008

[Tom Servo]

that ugly hotel sould get torn down. it's so bad on the river with the hines building and the lohan building behind it. a good spot for a tall building.

[denizen467]

^ Tantalizing. And at only 20 stories, possible, though it's a slender site.

Who was the architect?

[Busy Bee]

^With the one-story annex on its' west side, the site isn't all that more slender than 300 Lasalle.