CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[colemonkee]

Any contrast to the River North beige is welcome.

[sentinel]

^^I don't know why the developer can't build on the vacant lot directly between the corner apartment building and the church, and then the renovated the corner building can be converted into the community center the church wants to build. That would probably go a long way to appeasing the adjacent condo board (even though, personally, they shouldn't have to be appeased), since the new building isn't directly west of them, and the developer can save a lot of money on demolition since they're building on an empty parking lot.
It just seems..logical; I genuinely feel like some developers do things back-asswards in this city.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by sentinel

It just seems..logical; I genuinely feel like some developers do things back-asswards in this city.

Or if the old building *must* go, maybe rotate the plan 90 degrees, so the tallest portion fronts LaSalle and the low-rise community center can occupy the east side of the lot. That would create some separation between the high-rises.
Of course, the NIMBYs would still screech about density and traffic and other NIMBY things.

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^I don't know why the developer can't build on the vacant lot directly between the corner apartment building and the church, and then the renovated the corner building can be converted into the community center the church wants to build. That would probably go a long way to appeasing the adjacent condo board (even though, personally, they shouldn't have to be appeased), since the new building isn't directly west of them, and the developer can save a lot of money on demolition since they're building on an empty parking lot.
It just seems..logical; I genuinely feel like some developers do things back-asswards in this city.

I'm not so sure:

Annunciation plans a community center no taller than the lesser of seven stories or 100 feet between the cathedral and Fifield’s planned tower, Senn said. The community center is expected to include a chapel, classrooms, office space and a banquet hall, she said. Fifield’s plan provides “significant” financial support of the church, Senn said

The existing building is probably too small to do everything they want in the community center. Even if it was big enough, it's not obvious to me that the cost of gut rehabbing it and converting it would be cheaper than demolishing it and rebuilding from scratch. Not to mention that it would not be directly adjacent to the existing church

There's also the fact that the existing building is on the corner, with parking wrapping around it in an L shape. I'm not an architect, but I have to believe that it's hard to get maximum usable floor space on an L-shaped instead of a rectangular parcel (not to mention increased construction costs). Given that a major component of this plan seems to be "how can we turn this land into as much $$$ as possible for the church", that's going to be a big factor.

All-in-all, I totally see why this plan makes the most sense from the perspective of the church, who is the landowner here. I also get why 111 W maple folks aren't exactly thrilled, even if I don't agree with them.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^I don't know why the developer can't build on the vacant lot directly between the corner apartment building and the church, and then the renovated the corner building can be converted into the community center the church wants to build. That would probably go a long way to appeasing the adjacent condo board (even though, personally, they shouldn't have to be appeased), since the new building isn't directly west of them, and the developer can save a lot of money on demolition since they're building on an empty parking lot.
It just seems..logical; I genuinely feel like some developers do things back-asswards in this city.

This may be a fallback position for the team, but it kills the adjacency of the church and community center, requiring (at the least) a long hallway connecting the two. It also makes parking for the apartments more difficult, they would have to be accessed from LaSalle (which the city may not grant, as a boulevard) or from the alley (which may need to be widened). On the plus side, the parking podium would only be a narrow piece of blank wall and would eventually be covered up on the north by a more active community center.

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Or if the old building *must* go, maybe rotate the plan 90 degrees, so the tallest portion fronts LaSalle and the low-rise community center can occupy the east side of the lot. That would create some separation between the high-rises.
Of course, the NIMBYs would still screech about density and traffic and other NIMBY things.

This seems more realistic to me since the church probably wants a direct connection between the sanctuary and community spaces, this would preserve that. But then the community space would be pushed onto a side street, and any parking entrance would need to be across LaSalle or Maple sidewalk instead of from the alley.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by CrazyCres

I dig the design, love the extra density

It's the same standard SBC design we've gotten for the last 10-15 years.

[the urban politician]

Pandemic Was A Gut Punch, But Fulton Market Multifamily Is Back On Track
July 9, 2020 Brian Rogal,

Like many people in the early days of the pandemic, Marquette Cos. President Darren Sloniger underestimated just how big of a disruption the coronavirus would become. But the full scale of it was made clear when the institutional backer of the firm's plan for several new apartment towers on the 1400 block of West Randolph Street in Fulton Market called to say it was backing out. "That was a big punch in the gut," Sloniger said. But the much-anticipated development is coming back to life.

The Naperville, Illinois-based firm had counted on breaking ground this year on the development, which would eventually bring more than 500 new units to the neighborhood, easily one of the hottest residential areas in the city. To keep it on track, Sloniger decided to set aside the company's traditional way of financing construction deals. Instead of securing institutional financing for the whole project at once, he broke it into several portions and began looking for private investors who still believed in Fulton Market's potential. "I just started picking up the phone and dialing for dollars," he said Thursday during Bisnow's Chicago Deep Dish: Construction and Development Update webinar. "I got really good traction right off the bat," he added. So much so that he secured the financing needed for the $85M 1454 West Randolph St., a planned 243-unit building. "We literally closed it at 8 last night, so I'm feeling a little bit better today," Sloniger said.

He expects even better news lies ahead for the project that was dead in the water just a few months ago. The institutional partner that hesitated back then agreed to return, this time to help finance the more than $100M 1400 West Randolph, a 278-unit proposal that Sloniger said will close in about four weeks. "We were lucky that we had a strong project in an area that everybody loves," he said. Another factor in convincing invest

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/...medium=Browser

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by spyguy

It's the same standard SBC design we've gotten for the last 10-15 years.

...by way of Pappageorge Haymes lol

Here's a better rendering, via Block Club. The proportions look to me like they're already counting on at least five floors being chopped off.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

...by way of Pappageorge Haymes lol

Here's a better rendering, via Block Club. The proportions look to me like they're already counting on at least five floors being chopped off.

That rendering was made by the Condo association next door so I don't think it has much merit.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

That rendering was made by the Condo association next door so I don't think it has much merit.

Oh really? That's amazing.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

That rendering was made by the Condo association next door so I don't think it has much merit.

Gotta put those HOA fees to good use!

[rgarri4]

When the NIMBY rendering looks better than the architects

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Oh really? That's amazing.

typical Block Club reporting... loose with the facts and always an "us vs. them" spin to every single event.

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

typical Block Club reporting... loose with the facts and always an "us vs. them" spin to every single event.

The renderings are pretty clearly labeled in the story as being commissioned by the condo board. The whole thing is little more than quotes from one building's residents, the developer, and details for today's community meeting. The entire tone of the story is about as neutral as you could hope.

[Barrelfish]

One of the very first comments by the 125 W Maple Developers on the community meeting (slightly paraphrased):

"We've gotten a lot of questions about blocked views. This is a downtown area with zoning that encourages density, and density very often results in impacts on views. We are happy to work with the community on other concerns, but an impact on views is unavoidable"

Looks like they plan to stand firm.

[AlpacaObsessor]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

One of the very first comments by the 125 W Maple Developers on the community meeting (slightly paraphrased):

"We've gotten a lot of questions about blocked views. This is a downtown area with zoning that encourages density, and density very often results in impacts on views. We are happy to work with the community on other concerns, but an impact on views is unavoidable"

Looks like they plan to stand firm.

The Q/A portion is a shit show haha. Last person to comment literally said people would be committing suicide because of this building.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by AlpacaObsessor

...people would be committing suicide because of this building.

I mean the design is bland, but not quite that bad.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

One of the very first comments by the 125 W Maple Developers on the community meeting (slightly paraphrased):

"We've gotten a lot of questions about blocked views. This is a downtown area with zoning that encourages density, and density very often results in impacts on views. We are happy to work with the community on other concerns, but an impact on views is unavoidable"

Looks like they plan to stand firm.

I don't know how possible future development does not factor in to peoples' decision to purchase a condo downtown... do they think all those tall buildings just appeared one day as-is?

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by AlpacaObsessor

The Q/A portion is a shit show haha. Last person to comment literally said people would be committing suicide because of this building.

I logged off after the first 2 questions from Q&A.

#1 was Preservation Chicago making a not-particularly-forceful case to preserve the existing building (the answer was no, but maybe they will reuse some materials in the interior).

#2 was a west-facing 111 W Maple owner who was mad about loss of light and property value, and who didn't like what the developers had to say about it. He may have mentioned that he could go bankrupt if his property value fell?

I expected that comments #3-100 would be every other west-facing condo owner with the same complaints, which is why I logged off. But dire warnings of suicide was beyond what I would have guessed.

[bgsrand]

Imagine being that uninformed that your emotional response to a proposed building is to threaten to take your life...truly 2020 in a nutshell.