CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[Chi-Sky21]

Somebody needs to scale down the side of the building when its done and plop a toupee on top of the T....then it will really be a match.

[J_M_Tungsten]

How is it nimby not to like a sign? It is gaudy as can be. No one is arguing about height reductions or parking increases. Just like every building proposed on this site, this sign will have people who like and dislike what is going up.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by emathias

So some of you are anti-NIMBY when it comes to new construction, but NIMBY when it comes to signage? I see ...

nonsense. this is an aesthetic issue, not an issue of development itself. there are dozens and dozens of towers that have been recently built that many SSPers decry for their ugliness, that doesn't mean that they're development NIMBYs, they just don't like ugliness.

it's the same thing with this sign, no one is saying that 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Trump doesn't have a right to put a sign on his building, just that the sign is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 awful, much like the man himself.

[lu9]

I think its is a tad nimby-esque. In the following way...

NIMBYs tend to look at the world only in their little bubble of course and in doing this they miss the bigger picture. (i.e. Development leads to additional development, vacant land/space inversely affects values, developing property soup-to-nuts is not easy and shouldn't be taken for granted.)

In the TRUMP situation, the bigger picture is Trump, the developer, came in and built a winner on a previously underutilized site. Unfortunately, to get the good here, the city needs to accept the bad. Warts and all, Trump is trump and he is flashy.

While I don't care for the sign, the reality is, this guy put this thing together, built a beautiful now iconic Chicago building and he gets his sign. I wish he had better taste when it comes to the flash, but such is life. His building, his sign.

/rant

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by lu9

I think its is a tad nimby-esque. In the following way...

NIMBYs tend to look at the world only in their little bubble of course and in doing this they miss the bigger picture. (i.e. Development leads to additional development, vacant land/space inversely affects values, developing property soup-to-nuts is not easy and shouldn't be taken for granted.)

In the TRUMP situation, the bigger picture is Trump, the developer, came in and built a winner on a previously underutilized site. Unfortunately, to get the good here, the city needs to accept the bad. Warts and all, Trump is trump and he is flashy.

While I don't care for the sign, the reality is, this guy put this thing together, built a beautiful now iconic Chicago building and he gets his sign. I wish he had better taste when it comes to the flash, but such is life. His building, his sign.

/rant

This is a good example of being being too PC for one's own good. Does the man have a legal right to put a sign up on his own building? Yes. Are there countless examples of other buildings with signs on them? Absolutely. Do we honor free speech in this country? Of course. On the surface, this is an ascetic issue, but between the lines there is something more complex that I think we can all agree on. As much as we "appreciate" the guy developing a supertall in our town, we don't necessarily want to advertise it, because at the end of the day, a majority of us hate him, his politics and what he stands for. His tacky name is going to be in every picture that every out-of-towner takes from the Mich Ave bridge, and Chicago being the liberal mecca that it is, and SSP being a majority liberal, this is a cold trade. I personally plan to boycott the place even though I like Sixteen, and when it comes time to by a condo it won't be in this building, which is all one can really do. We may have to take our medicine, but don't expect us to do it quietly.

[StormFire]

Originally Posted by StormFire

The Walgreens at Franklin and Randolph has signs up inside saying they lost their lease and have to be out by June 6 or so.

Well now they say their last day open for business will be 8/31.

[rossguthrie]

Originally Posted by StormFire

Well now they say their last day open for business will be 8/31.

They are moving to the Thompson Center one the southwest corner where the Dress Barn used to be.

[BVictor1]

The Chestnut/Orleans Tower was approved today

361 W. Chestnut

pappageorge/haymes

incorporating a cul-de-sac into Orleans

retail along Orleans

There have been some minor reductions...

299' from 345'

From 31 stories to 29

310 units from 333

170 parking from 224, which is great because of the proximity to the brown line stop at Chicago.

They want to have the permit drawing submitted to the city by this summer for approval and would like to begin construction sometime on the 1st quarter of 2015.

They're contributing $3,100,000 to the affordable housing fund.

Planning stated that this was a transitional area between higher density/taller buildings and lower density/smaller buildings... Ald. Tunny, whose on the commission asked in a somewhat concerned tone, "if we were forging a new level of density?"

When I spoke, I stated that elected officials need to get over this concern about height and density as the population of Chicago is 800,000 less than it's peak and we need to densify to keep up.

Also, when the project came before the commission that was in Tunny's ward (Clark & Belmont), I kind of threw it at him again, saying that I hope we were "forging on a new level of density". I stated that I didn't approve or disapprove of the project, but the continued dumbing down of developments in vibrant areas near transit was foolish. I said, "neighborhood groups should certainly have a voice, but not a final say". People always want to talk about context and fitting in, but no one has spoken about the handsome terra-cotta building that will be demolished along Belmont and the alley. BTW, some of those details could be salvaged and installed within the interior of the current proposal. Why do buildings always have to fit in? There's a 20-story tower1 block to the N/E.

The developers of that project actually appreciated my comments.

[denizen467]

^ Thanks for the report, and thanks for being a vocal yimby!


==================


Some years out, this could result in some big projects being constructed:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/2...-tribune-planning-a-second-chicago-tower
Is Tribune planning a second Chicago tower?
By Lynne Marek May 15, 2014

As Tribune Co. CEO Peter Liguori angles to cash in on the company's real estate, there are a lot of ideas swirling in his head, including a vision of twin Tribune towers. “We could do things like build another Tribune tower next door to Tribune Tower,” he said today during the MoffettNathanson Media & Communications Summit in New York. ...

Mr. Liguori said he was surprised, when he took the Chicago media conglomerate's top post in January 2014, to find that the owners didn't really know what property they owned. It was “worrisome,” he said, but he tasked his staff with putting together a book, to which he added pages for months.

Since then, Tribune has hired a real estate executive and outside advisers to maximize occupancy in buildings, consider staff moves for more efficient use, and to analyze property rights that would let the company do things like build next to the landmark, neo-Gothic Tribune Tower. Just east of the tower, Tribune owns a surface parking lot that could provide room for such a project. ...

[munchymunch]

haha wouldn't this be great, who needs the realtor building?

[Skyguy_7]

^Good to hear they're considering options. That lot is too damn close to Michigan ave, not to mention one of our most treasured buildings, not to capitalize on it. Can you imagine a 21st century take on the Tribune Tower? That idea has a lot of potential.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Also, when the project came before the commission that was in Tunny's ward (Clark & Belmont), I kind of threw it at him again, saying that I hope we were "forging on a new level of density". I stated that I didn't approve or disapprove of the project, but the continued dumbing down of developments in vibrant areas near transit was foolish. I said, "neighborhood groups should certainly have a voice, but not a final say". People always want to talk about context and fitting in, but no one has spoken about the handsome terra-cotta building that will be demolished along Belmont and the alley. BTW, some of those details could be salvaged and installed within the interior of the current proposal. Why do buildings always have to fit in? There's a 20-story tower1 block to the N/E.

The developers of that project actually appreciated my comments.

For Reference. It's a shame this has to go. It really has some character.

[Mikemak27]

Regarding the Chesnut / Orleans Tower, unless there was some vocal NIMBY opposition that we all somehow missed, this has to be an example of a developer bringing a bigger sized project to the table then they actually intended for, could get a loan for, or thought locals would be happy with. Then when he ran into no opposition, he just quietly downgrades the size.

[pilsenarch]

^YES. That is exactly how developers work in this town. They ALWAYS go to the alderman with more than they anticipate building for exactly this reason.

as far as TRUMP is concerned, I plan on boycotting as well... I guess the condo docs were written in such a way to keep the association from having any control over this :-(

[harryc]

Crossing the T, and poking you in the I

[the urban politician]

The TRUMP sign is annoying because it belongs on a casino in Atlantic City, not Chicago's iconic river front.

But I think we all eventually will need to get over this...

[Chicago Shawn]

^^Trump's first sign application was denied. I assume the one we are seeing installed is smaller in size than what he first had planned.

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Plus with a grocery store at the base I don't see how anybody could complain. River West kind of lost a fight against West Loop for the next cool neighborhood for living/working/dining so they should be happy to see something like this. The Seattle-based developer has a pretty solid track record of putting together community-in-a-box projects like this and it seems like they know how to get deals closed, even in Chicago.

I don't know anything about the alderman/nimby situation in that area but if someone throws chaff at this I'd be pretty surprised.

I'm not so sure about that. This pocket of River West is inhabited by the same people that complained about the church bells at St. John Cantius; to which the church no longer rings the bells after 9pm in order to be "a good neighbor". It takes a special kind of NIMBY to move in across the street from a century year old church and complain about the bell tower keeping you awake at night.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The TRUMP sign is annoying because it belongs on a casino in Atlantic City, not Chicago's iconic river front.

But I think we all eventually will need to get over this...

No, you need to write a letter to the hotel/tower and the city and tell them the sign looks ridiculous and ruins the building! They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that!

[wierdaaron]

At least it's not gold.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The Chestnut/Orleans Tower was approved today

361 W. Chestnut

----
Also, when the project came before the commission that was in Tunny's ward (Clark & Belmont), I kind of threw it at him again, saying that I hope we were "forging on a new level of density". I stated that I didn't approve or disapprove of the project, but the continued dumbing down of developments in vibrant areas near transit was foolish. I said, "neighborhood groups should certainly have a voice, but not a final say". People always want to talk about context and fitting in, but no one has spoken about the handsome terra-cotta building that will be demolished along Belmont and the alley. BTW, some of those details could be salvaged and installed within the interior of the current proposal. Why do buildings always have to fit in? There's a 20-story tower1 block to the N/E.

The developers of that project actually appreciated my comments.

Thanks for going to the Plan Commission and gathering the intel on these projects. Additionally, thank you for speaking out on the anti density comments made by Tunny which are getting a bit more pervasive from him as of late. I mean seriously, if this was Toronto, there would be a 40-50 story condo tower planned for Orleans/Chestnut; but alas in Chicago, I fear we are a city that is afraid of being a city. I am thankful its going forward and cleared a hurdle at 29 floors and 310 units, but in other world cities of this size and stature, this would be considered standard development for a central area site adjacent to rapid transit.

[Skyguy_7]

I recall reading about plans for a 40th floor rooftop lounge, so I don't know if this is in addition to it, or if they've revised their plans and this IS it.. But there are new drawings out to bid for an 11th floor indoor/outdoor rooftop lounge, on Prudential's podium. Its view will certainly rival that of Trump's. Completion date is set for September of this year