CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[J_M_Tungsten]

Awesome updates, Solarwind! All of these buildings are making such dramatic differences in each of these areas.

Originally Posted by SolarWind

November 3, 2015

This one especially.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by spyguy

5440 N Sheridan - Overture Edgewater Beach

186 senior apartments, 250 parking spaces (60 for 5445 Sheridan)

Say, can Boston borrow this for the seaport? It would fit much better there than in Chicago.

[BVictor1]

346-358 N. Union Street and 347-357 N. Halsted Street








A few notes...

373 dwelling units (rental)
158 parking spaces
450’ building height

-10% affordable housing and 14 of those units on site

-one guy says that there is too much parking and it should be a taller building…

-car sharing within building

-.4 parking ratio

-Alderman Reilly agrees with less parking

-30% studio/convertable 400-500 sq ft
-45% 1 bedroom
-20% 2 bedroom
-5% 3 bedroom 1400-1600 square feet

-dog park is accessed from Green and Union

-Reduced the number of units from over 500 to 373 because of the mixture in of larger units (FAR reached)

-Fall 2016 construction start?
-2018 delivery?

-DS-5 zoning

-$1500-2000 per month up to $3000 or 4000 for the larger units

-Walkway to Jewel

-3 entrances to the parking/main entrance from Union

-No commercial space

-50% green roof

-Probably more bike parking than car spaces in this tower

-Owner of K2 is converting 5 parking spaces for more bike parking because the garage isn't full of cars.

-Leed Certified

-One person talking about giant buildings going up with the lack of infrastructure. Construction project taking up street space...

-Alderman says that this is the CBD in the 3rd largest city in the country. Millions added to property tax base with these projects and there can't be a moratorium on high-density

[munchymunch]

It's good for pappageorge, back side makes me nervous...

[spyguy]

That's surprisingly better than what I imagined. For some reason I was expecting the tower to be closer to Halsted. The little bridge/driveway is interesting too.

[streetline]

The new Union/Halsted tower looks ok, and I'm very glad to see that lot developed in the near term. I'll also be very interested to see the new development they mentioned was coming on the Green St. side of Halsted.

But I wish the area had developed in a more integrated way...
I wish the owners and developers of the area could have coordinated and decked over the tracks all the way from Clinton out to Green (or eventually even Sangamon, restoring the old bridge over the tracks there). A public path at Desplains/Halsted street level over the tracks and ramps down to ground level at Clinton and Green would have really tied the neighborhood together.

Instead we're left with developments like this that are almost literally islands, with private bridges on either side reaching out to Halsted and the Jewel parking lot...

[the urban politician]

I like it, it makes do given the circumstances.

And I have to say, Ald Reilly seems to be saying the right things at least a part of the time these days.

[The Lurker]

Pleasantly surprised. I was expecting more a mirror image to K2 with the massing and height. How tall is Skybridge? 420'?

[Tom Servo]

Miami called; they want their unimpressive, auto-centric buildings back...

I understand you got the expressway running underneath, but come on. Try harder.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Miami called; they want their unimpressive, auto-centric buildings back...

I understand you got the expressway running underneath, but come on. Try harder.

It's Pappageorge/Haymes, this is about as good as it gets with them.

[Mikemak27]

I like the new Halsted tower proposal except for three things. 1. The building should front Halsted Street and provide a more inviting pedestrian experience. All this building does is create another suburban style tower where the entire Halsted entrance is auto centric. 2. There is no bridge from the Jewel parking lot to Halsted. Again, this appears to be another area that is a private gated area not open to any pedestrian traffic. 3. It's terrible fiscal policy for the city and CHA to be subsidizing luxury units for 'affordable housing'. More affordable housing could be created than subsidizing $2200 one bedrooms and $3200 two bedrooms. Reily should require for the developer to pay for all of the units to be built off site where construction and land costs are much lower. This city is bankrupt and we shouldn't be subsidizing rents for politically connected members that qualify for affordable housing in luxury units.
Otherwise, the density and looks of the building are fine with me.

[thewaterman11]

Why is there such a gap between the parking podiums on K2 and this new Halsted tower? Is there a ROW down there?

[LouisVanDerWright]

LOL at all the comments on this PH thing by K2. Apparently no one here has bothered to actually look at the site constraints.

First of all, no, the building can't front Halsted because then it would be sitting directly over the freeway. The entire Western third of the site is over the freeway not to mention the railway tracks running at grade through this site and over the freeway. The logical result of this is to have the building front the only other road adjacent to the site which is Union.

Second, there are multiple easements and ROW's here. I am not sure the exact purpose of it, but there is an easement running between this and K2. Also, not sure if it's the same easement, but there is an easement somewhere in here for potential future rails that, IIRC, is critical to ever being able to route HSR into Union station. Ardcelia probably knows more about that. Then there are the existing rails on the South side of the site.

The point being that there is only one place where this building can possibly be accessed at grade and that is from the East at Union. It can't sit against Halsted and it can't be accessed from the South or North due to easements. So while it's not particularly exciting, it's actually a decent design given the constraints. Let's leave the real excitement for lots to the West on the other side of Halsted between Kinzie, Wayman, and Green where there is room for two or three buildings that could really tie the neighborhood together since they actually stand a chance of fronting the Halsted viaduct. This area is really unique from an infrastructure and engineering standpoint and I hope we can get a few buildings in here that offer real solutions for a classic Chicago multi layer neighborhood.

[Stunnies23]

Originally Posted by thewaterman11

Why is there such a gap between the parking podiums on K2 and this new Halsted tower? Is there a ROW down there?

I believe they are leaving a spot for a future high speed rail corridor thru there. The Neighbors of West Loop have some slides from the meeting last night at their website. Take a look at slide thirteen.
http://neighborsofwestloop.com/352-n...sed-high-rise/

[Near North Resident]

sounds like it has a lot of support, lets hope it gets built

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It's Pappageorge/Haymes, this is about as good as it gets with them.

You said it!

This is about at the upper extent of their talent. I've never seen an architecture firm be so allergic to proportion and elegance as Pappageorge/Haymes evidently is........and what is up with these 'hats' (screenwalls/parapets) they are now throwing on the top of their projects (like that awful one at 465 N Park Drive)........surely it must take a concerted effort as a designer to be this clumsy, right??

From the one vantage point (and only that one), it reminds me of their Walton on the Park South (viewing slender side head-on).......

So, I guess.....if it's gotta be a P/H, sure - go ahead and build it.....


(by the way, thanks for making it to this meeting and sharing)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

This is about at the upper extent of their talent. I've never seen an architecture firm be so allergic to proportion and elegance as Pappageorge/Haymes evidently is.....

Do you know this for a fact? A lot of architecture firms are bound by what their client wants/demands and allows and doesn't allow them to do. If you've ever worked in an industry where you get hired to do something and your client has the final say in what gets implemented and how, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I've had this happen to me (not in architecture though since I'm not an architect) and it doesn't speak to anything about how talented the people are who actually work on it - it's just that the client got the final say in what was to be done and how, even if it's old and dumb - there's nothing we can do about that except to just do the job.

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Do you know this for a fact? A lot of architecture firms are bound by what their client wants/demands and allows and doesn't allow them to do. If you've ever worked in an industry where you get hired to do something and your client has the final say in what gets implemented and how, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I've had this happen to me (not in architecture though since I'm not an architect) and it doesn't speak to anything about how talented the people are who actually work on it - it's just that the client got the final say in what was to be done and how, even if it's old and dumb - there's nothing we can do about that except to just do the job.

I'd have to agree with this to a certain extent. I think sometimes clients know to go to certain vendors if they are looking for cheap and fast vs costly and well done vs something in the middle. But being in the creative field (and i would assume that architecture operates in the same way) clients often times are their own worst enemies. I've designed gold and often clients insist on aluminum. I honestly find this building pretty gross, poor proportions and massing, played out design motifs. Just, yuk.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

I'd have to agree with this to a certain extent. I think sometimes clients know to go to certain vendors if they are looking for cheap and fast vs costly and well done vs something in the middle. But being in the creative field (and i would assume that architecture operates in the same way) clients often times are their own worst enemies. I've designed gold and often clients insist on aluminum. I honestly find this building pretty gross, poor proportions and massing, played out design motifs. Just, yuk.

Yep, 100%. I am a consultant in the tech field (though that encompasses a lot more than you'd think) and this happens to us all the time. We can pitch various things (technologies, resources, etc) all we want, and in the end many times a client will choose to disregard part of it and pick something else for whatever reason - often times to keep the cost down if it's not a project with millions upon millions of dollars at its disposal. My job is, in the end, to do the job and that includes what the client decides on, even if we think it's shit. We can try and sway them, but eventually they make the bottom line decision. I've implemented stuff before that was shittily architected (in a technology sense) and the only reason it was is because of what the client decided, against our recommendations. I'm sure if you were in the field and saw what we did, you might give us crap for it and tell us we don't have talent, but the pure fact is that there are way more factors at hand.

I have friends who are architects who describe to me the same exact thing with developers, which is why I'm bringing this up.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Do you know this for a fact? A lot of architecture firms are bound by what their client wants/demands and allows and doesn't allow them to do. If you've ever worked in an industry where you get hired to do something and your client has the final say in what gets implemented and how, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I've had this happen to me (not in architecture though since I'm not an architect) and it doesn't speak to anything about how talented the people are who actually work on it - it's just that the client got the final say in what was to be done and how, even if it's old and dumb - there's nothing we can do about that except to just do the job.

We have ample evidence on P/H. They have a very large portfolio. Look at it. Budget design (and they've had projects with varying budgets - not only tighter budget) does not equal bad design. There are choices they make (not the developer/client - they do) as design architect all along throughout the process (within the greater context of their budget constraints) that determine the overall quality of the design. If you want to compare like/like program and budget-wise (not perfect comparison, but good enough) compare P/H's work with HPA's. Night and day......