CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 69

BonoboZill4 · #**1361** Posted **Feb 13, 2019, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMWChicago

Hahahaha Accurate as hell.

Well, other than the fact that wasn't SOM's proposal. Different firm as discusses earlier

bgsrand · #**1362** Posted **Feb 13, 2019, 4:04 AM**

Looks like a mixture of NEMA and CPT (+a spire) in NYC.

DePaul Bunyan · #**1363** Posted **Feb 13, 2019, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMWChicago

The only thing throwing me off of this is that it's on an axis. If they set it facing due east I'd be down.

The 45-degree off-axis maximizes Lake Michigan and Grant Park views though, that's twice as many units with lake and park-facing units. It definitely looks like some thought went into this proposal.

DTx2Chi · #**1364** Posted **Feb 13, 2019, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

The 45-degree off-axis maximizes Lake Michigan and Grant Park views though, that's twice as many units with lake and park-facing units. It definitely looks like some thought went into this proposal.

Maybe but I still don't like it

HomrQT · #**1365** Posted **Feb 13, 2019, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

The 45-degree off-axis maximizes Lake Michigan and Grant Park views though, that's twice as many units with lake and park-facing units. It definitely looks like some thought went into this proposal.

Excellent observation.

chicagodeckerdude · #**1366** Posted **Feb 13, 2019, 4:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTx2Chi

Maybe but I still don't like it

Looks like a building that would be in a B movie showing what a future city would look like. Not a fan of the main tower.

Rooster slayer · #**1367** Posted **Feb 17, 2019, 2:17 AM**

Yup, both those towers look messy.(what you're seeing there is two towers) Mute anyway, no one said this is final design proposal.

pianowizard · #**1368** Posted **Feb 17, 2019, 5:45 PM**

It looks too similar to NEMA, but I welcome the height, and the location is great for something this tall.

photoLith · #**1369** Posted **Feb 17, 2019, 9:27 PM**

I sort of like it, but its a mess.

RedCorsair87 · #**1370** Posted **Feb 17, 2019, 11:14 PM**

I like them. They look better in the other photos: https://www.behance.net/gallery/57770127/Chicago-Lakeshore-Tower

If we are wish-listing, I'd take the Zaha Hadid Proposal over everything else.

Steely Dan · #**1371** Posted **Feb 21, 2019, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Developer of former Chicago Spire site gets more time to revise plans, after proposal for two skyscrapers was rejected

Ryan Ori
Chicago Tribune

The owner of the Chicago Spire site could have another year to begin developing the lakefront site, four months after a downtown alderman rejected a proposal for two skyscrapers.

The Chicago Plan Commission on Thursday voted to give developer Related Midwest until May 2020 to start construction on the 2.2-acre site at 400 N. Lake Shore Drive. The extension still must be formally approved by the City Council’s zoning committee and the full City Council.

Overall zoning for the site, called a planned development, is set to expire May 6.

If a developer fails to start construction within six years of a planned development’s approval, the zoning process must start from scratch. The site already has received two extensions since a project was first approved under a separate developer in 2007.

full article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/...e-extension-ryan-ori-20190221-story.html

r18tdi · #**1372** Posted **Feb 22, 2019, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It's already been months, they couldn't have just revised it and did what Reilly wanted?

Ever think that Reilly might not want to host a contentious public meeting until after he secures reelection?

BVictor1 · #**1373** Posted **Feb 22, 2019, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Ever think that Reilly might not want to host a contentious public meeting until after he secures reelection?

He's running unopposed, election secured!

BonoboZill4 · #**1374** Posted **Feb 22, 2019, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

One thing I may have missed...why the objection to more hotel rooms? Never quite understood that part

Taxi traffic on a limited access road

Chi-Sky21 · #**1375** Posted **Feb 22, 2019, 6:56 PM**

Seems silly since if you have it be more residential you will just have more personal car or uber traffic anyways.

Mr Downtown · #**1376** Posted **Feb 22, 2019, 8:14 PM**

Not just the taxis; hotels get daily truck deliveries (laundry, foodstuffs, etc.) that create access issues. Trip generation rates for residential buildings, OTOH, are quite modest.

BonoboZill4 · #**1377** Posted **Feb 22, 2019, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Not just the taxis; hotels get daily truck deliveries (laundry, foodstuffs, etc.) that create access issues. Trip generation rates for residential buildings, OTOH, are quite modest.

Bingo

pilsenarch · #**1378** Posted **Feb 23, 2019, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Not just the taxis; hotels get daily truck deliveries (laundry, foodstuffs, etc.) that create access issues. Trip generation rates for residential buildings, OTOH, are quite modest.

It was my understanding that all taxi's, deliveries, etc., were to occur from lower LSD...

LouisVanDerWright · #**1379** Posted **Feb 23, 2019, 4:28 PM**

Also it's a — location for a hotel despite the views. Hotels like to be on major thouroughfares in the middle of everything which this is not. That's why Wacker, Michigan, Columbus, etc have tons of hotels on them.

RockfordSoxFan · #**1380** Posted **Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 PM**

To play devil's advocate... Why wouldn't a hotel that close to Illinois most popular tourist attraction be plausible? It seems logical to me. No need for Uber or taxi rides to Navy Pier, just walk.