CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS

[10023]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Alot of people drive to church. If a lot of people drive to this particular church I couldn't tell you. But older people tend to drive or get driven to church.

It seems incredibly stupid in this particular location. If you can't walk, then I'm sure your doorman will be happy to hail you a taxi. (And if you're too old to physically walk, then you shouldn't be driving.)

Anyway, does this one move to the Supertall forum now?

[Ned.B]

I don't proclaim to know a ton about Catholicism and how the churches work as a system, but my guess is that since this is a Cathedral, and the center of the diocese in Chicago that it is not just a local community Church and that it regularly has visitors from around the region. As such it may have parking requirements that other downtown churches may not have.

[Randomguy34]

I guess to clarify some things, only 225 spots are reserved for Holy Name as a replacement for the parking spots they originally had. I don't know why the other 869 parking spots are needed.

This project is beginning to remind me of the "Hudson Block" proposal in Detroit, where there's a new tall and skinny tower on top of a bunch of retail in a major city corridor.

https://i.imgur.com/gHihERSh.jpg
Source: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208634

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Huh?
If I lived there I would definitely NOT want a car. Why even bother with living in the core of the city if car ownership is a priority?

I thought we'd been over this. The US is a big place. Just Illinois is a big place. There are lots of places that people want to go, that trains don't go to and are too far away to take an uber.
If I was rich enough to live in this building, I'd still want to have my own car to use for weekend trips out of the city, etc. That does NOT mean using a car for daily commutes.

If the only response to that is "go live in the burbs", then don't complain when those people and their money don't live in the city.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 10023

Anyway, does this one move to the Supertall forum now?

nope. the supertall sub-forum is exclusively for projects that are U/C.

Originally Posted by Ned.B

I don't proclaim to know a ton about Catholicism and how the churches work as a system, but my guess is that since this is a Cathedral, and the center of the diocese in Chicago that it is not just a local community Church and that it regularly has visitors from around the region. As such it may have parking requirements that other downtown churches may not have.

ding! ding! ding!

holy name serves as the cathedral for the entire chicagoland archdiocese.

it is a much bigger deal than your typical neighborhood parish church where every single person who uses the church lives within a mile of it. holy name attracts catholics from all over the city and burbs.

[maru2501]

let's put it this way. Harry Caray's funeral was there

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

nope. the supertall sub-forum is exclusively for projects that are U/C.





ding! ding! ding!

holy name serves as the cathedral for the entire chicagoland archdiocese.

it is a much bigger deal than your typical neighborhood parish church where every single person who uses the church lives within a mile of it. holy name attracts catholics from all over the city and burbs.

And regularly holds massive services that draw people from the entire area, many of whom don't have access to easy public transportation.

[10023]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I thought we'd been over this. The US is a big place. Just Illinois is a big place. There are lots of places that people want to go, that trains don't go to and are too far away to take an uber.
If I was rich enough to live in this building, I'd still want to have my own car to use for weekend trips out of the city, etc. That does NOT mean using a car for daily commutes.

If the only response to that is "go live in the burbs", then don't complain when those people and their money don't live in the city.

That's true. But it also begs the question of why a greater than 1:1 ratio of cars to units is necessary. The buildings along the Inner Drive have parking for residents, but managed to do so without enormous podiums.

And people can use local garages for these more occasional trips, as well.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by bcp

completely - typically if you are in the city and have a car, it's not for a run to 7-11 ... it's basically car storage with the occasional trip to home depot or the michigan beaches (kids of course would change that, but can't say)

I realize much of this is for "car storage" and people living there may also use public transit.
But another way to frame the question is who should have premium access to public transit? Should it be people who are less reliant on transit - including the most affluent who can most easily afford alternatives (e.g., hopping into a taxi after work) - and who use their own cars on the weekends to travel outside the area for activities like shopping, etc? Or would it make sense for premium transit locations to cater to those who most use transit, including for non-work travel? Additionally, for this location, place those likely to shop on foot or by transit adjacent to a major shopping area vs. those likely to drive to other locations?
I think it is reasonable to ask what is optimal.

[gebs]

Looks like the second tower has grown "from the 583-foot figure shown in the initial elevation drawings to 654 feet." I've been out on vacation, so this might be old news, but Curbed just posted this:

1,000-foot River North tower tops packed Chicago Plan Commission agenda

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

I realize much of this is for "car storage" and people living there may also use public transit.
But another way to frame the question is who should have premium access to public transit? Should it be people who are less reliant on transit - including the most affluent who can most easily afford alternatives (e.g., hopping into a taxi after work) - and who use their own cars on the weekends to travel outside the area for activities like shopping, etc? Or would it make sense for premium transit locations to cater to those who most use transit, including for non-work travel? Additionally, for this location, place those likely to shop on foot or by transit adjacent to a major shopping area vs. those likely to drive to other locations?
I think it is reasonable to ask what is optimal.

Of course we don’t actually know how much the parking ratio in this case reflects the developer’s (i.e. potential residents’) wishes or the Alderman’s (i.e. voters’). Unfortunately the rezoning negotiation process is a black box - we only see the final outcome. It’s possible that this location just is particularly attractive to transit users who nonetheless need cars.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by gebs

Looks like the second tower has grown "from the 583-foot figure shown in the initial elevation drawings to 654 feet." I've been out on vacation, so this might be old news, but Curbed just posted this:

1,000-foot River North tower tops packed Chicago Plan Commission agenda

Is Hopkins retiring or something? The Curbed article says the Father & Son strip mall on North Ave that Hopkins blocked before is on the agenda. Might also explain why he’s been so supportive of One Chicago Square (I bet the brief delay for the traffic study was probably just for show).

The developer has a less than zero percent chance of getting approval without Hopkins’ approval. Either Hopkins grew some balls or he’s not planning to run again.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 10023

That's true. But it also begs the question of why a greater than 1:1 ratio of cars to units is necessary. The buildings along the Inner Drive have parking for residents, but managed to do so without enormous podiums.

And people can use local garages for these more occasional trips, as well.

Some do have underground parking, but a lot of those Inner Drive sites absolutely have parking podiums attached. They're just placed alongside the tower instead of beneath it, which is possible because a lot of those sites were very large.

In the case of One Chicago Square, we've heard from the developer previously that all parking would be underground. Now with this increase, it's not clear where the parking will go but maybe the architects were able to use space more efficiently underground using valet or automated parking systems. If they did put some on higher levels of the podium, its probably internal to the podium (maybe replacing the "event venue" planned for the third floor).

Regardless, the overriding rationale for this particular podium is not parking, but providing retail, commercial, and event space that should enliven the facade, unlike so many other parking podiums we've seen in the past. Basically, the developer just doesn't want to sell/rent a lot of units on lower floors that won't command top dollar, with no views and lots of street noise.

[rlw777]

I'm hoping the height increase on the second tower means the design is less blah than before.

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I'm hoping the height increase on the second tower means the design is less blah than before.

Same here, I'm hoping they fix up the crown on the taller one too.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Is Hopkins retiring or something? The Curbed article says the Father & Son strip mall on North Ave that Hopkins blocked before is on the agenda. Might also explain why he’s been so supportive of One Chicago Square (I bet the brief delay for the traffic study was probably just for show).

The developer has a less than zero percent chance of getting approval without Hopkins’ approval. Either Hopkins grew some balls or he’s not planning to run again.

If he is indeed retiring, I'd throw my name is the ring to replace him.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

The developer has a less than zero percent chance of getting approval without Hopkins’ approval. Either Hopkins grew some balls or he’s not planning to run again.

I don't think that approving a development in which 10 cranky residents got all huffy about will derail your political future. The 1st ward is clear indication of that fact.

[left of center]

Excellent news! Looks like this project is slowly lurching towards final approval.

The Chicago Ave bridge widening concerns me. It sounds like they will rip it out entirely and replace it with a new construction bridge. I know the old bascule bridges are traffic bottlenecks (especially Chicago Ave), but they are also an irreplaceable part of our history. Wish there was a way they could keep the iron work and bridgehouses and just expand the deck to allow for 2 lanes in each direction.

Anyone have any idea what the alderman is referring to when mentioning the “Chicago Avenue transit improvement program”? Is it simply eliminating street parking and adding additional traffic lanes, or is it possibly some kind of BRT?

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by left of center

Excellent news! Looks like this project is slowly lurching towards final approval.

The Chicago Ave bridge widening concerns me. It sounds like they will rip it out entirely and replace it with a new construction bridge. I know the old bascule bridges are traffic bottlenecks (especially Chicago Ave), but they are also an irreplaceable part of our history. Wish there was a way they could keep the iron work and bridgehouses and just expand the deck to allow for 2 lanes in each direction.

Anyone have any idea what the alderman is referring to when mentioning the “Chicago Avenue transit improvement program”? Is it simply eliminating street parking and adding additional traffic lanes, or is it possibly some kind of BRT?

The article says that the transit improvement program is eliminating street parking (like you thought it might be) so that Chicago Ave can be 4 lanes.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by left of center

Excellent news! Looks like this project is slowly lurching towards final approval.

The Chicago Ave bridge widening concerns me. It sounds like they will rip it out entirely and replace it with a new construction bridge. I know the old bascule bridges are traffic bottlenecks (especially Chicago Ave), but they are also an irreplaceable part of our history. Wish there was a way they could keep the iron work and bridgehouses and just expand the deck to allow for 2 lanes in each direction.

Anyone have any idea what the alderman is referring to when mentioning the “Chicago Avenue transit improvement program”? Is it simply eliminating street parking and adding additional traffic lanes, or is it possibly some kind of BRT?

Yeah, that will be the price of this thing. Plus the 4 lanes on Chicago Ave. but I will take the deal