CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 108

twister244 · #**2141** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 8:35 AM**

Great news all around..... As much as I wish we had something taller, I am more than happy to see this finally moving forward - Especially given the current economic headwinds.

I am also super happy to see there will be a pedestrian connection all the way to the lake now with the park.

Jibba · #**2142** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 2:59 PM**

God, if we end up with just one of these tacky slabs, we're really in for it. This will potentially be a blight on the lakefront for me: Retrofitting 'Chicago'-style windows into a tiered, NYC-style -- for crowded, lot-line-to-lot-line NYC building density that's not present at this site -- design does not a Chicago building make. The design barely works as a duo; a single one of these will look very awkward. I think there's a reason they're not showing dead-on N or S elevations of either tower -- they don't look like they're ascending; rather, disintegrating. See pg. 22 here: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city...20/RMW_400_LSD_Lakefront_Application.pdf

UrbanDweller98 · #**2143** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 4:12 PM**

The way this building is oriented it would look really strange as a solo tower, really hope the other tower comes too.

Steely Dan · #**2144** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 4:28 PM**

Yes, unlike NEMA, this tower will look a bit strange if its sibling never comes to fruition.

Related will probably get it done, but timelines with them seem to be more than the usual development crapshoot.

HomrQT · #**2145** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 5:42 PM**

I'm just going to go back to daydreaming about a single 2000 ft tower.

Zapatan · #**2146** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 6:20 PM**

Is the final height 840 or 851?

Quote:

Yes, unlike NEMA, this tower will look a bit strange if its sibling never comes to fruition.

Related will probably get it done, but timelines with them seem to be more than the usual development crapshoot.

Related never disappoints (yes that was sarcasm)

But in all seriousness, it sounds like the second tower wasn't cancelled entirely but rather more just uncertain at the time being, despite the rendering only showing one.

Quote:

If this is like NEMA that originally had a twin and they only developed one of them, I think this is a positive development in my opinion, rather than them committing to 765 ft. It leaves the door open for something bigger hopefully.

I was thinking this too, I know it sounds crazy to be optimistic but hopefully a few years down the road we'll be in a better time / place. It would be cool if they could apply for some extra height or at least build an identical twin. The views would indeed be amazing (and lucrative) from 900+ feet in that location.

Quote:

I'm just going to go back to daydreaming about a single 2000 ft tower.

I try not to think about it, but I'll be happy if Chicago can pull another 400m+ on some other site.

Steely Dan · #**2147** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Is the final height 840 or 851?

I suspect 840' is the zoning height, and 851' is the true structural height.

Waiting for bvic to confirm.....

r18tdi · #**2148** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 7:01 PM**

It's a major feat they got construction financing for one tower, let alone two. Phase two will be built, it's just a matter of when.

lakeshoredrive · #**2149** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 9:16 PM**

This development news make me sick and very underwhelmed. Once again, we lose as a skyscraper city with this safe mediocre development.

r18tdi · #**2150** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

This development news make me sick and very underwhelmed. Once again, we lose as a skyscraper city with this safe mediocre development.

We also lose Hole. Rest in peace Hole.

BrickellBased · #**2151** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 10:02 PM**

Calling the design blight on the lakefront is a bit extreme I would say.

Anyway, if Tribune East is built as designed then all sins will be washed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

God, if we end up with just one of these tacky slabs, we're really in for it. This will potentially be a blight on the lakefront for me: Retrofitting 'Chicago'-style windows into a tiered, NYC-style -- for crowded, lot-line-to-lot-line NYC building density that's not present at this site -- design does not a Chicago building make. The design barely works as a duo; a single one of these will look very awkward. I think there's a reason they're not showing dead-on N or S elevations of either tower -- they don't look like they're ascending; rather, disintegrating. See pg. 22 here: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city...20/RMW_400_LSD_Lakefront_Application.pdf

Steely Dan · #**2152** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrickellBased

Calling the design blight on the lakefront is a bit extreme I would say.

yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me, especially when there is ALREADY a true lakefront blight thats been there for decades just north of the site on the opposite side of ogden slip:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8894903,...mZiKlqI_4kA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Zapatan · #**2153** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

This development news make me sick and very underwhelmed. Once again, we lose as a skyscraper city with this safe mediocre development.

I've been trying to be happy that something is getting built but I hate to say that I agree. Real blown opportunity given the location, even if the twin gets built. I mean it's not bad but could've been much better.

Quote:

Anyway, if Tribune East is built as designed then all sins will be washed.

It would take both that and Parcel I at the very least to make up for something like the Chicago Spire.

Charmy2 · #**2154** Posted **Oct 18, 2023, 10:45 PM**

I really wish it stood at its original 1,000 foot height, but its better than nothing...or the gigantic pit and an empty plot that's not pleasant to look at.

UrbanDweller98 · #**2155** Posted **Oct 19, 2023, 12:51 AM**

Just a few weeks ago some of us were worried that there would be no ~495 ft tall towers under construction in the city for the foreseeable future after 1000M topped out. This project continues the 5 year streak of >800 ft tall towers being built in the city and bridges the gap until the next boom which hopefully will include Tribune East and Parcel I.

Toasty Joe · #**2156** Posted **Oct 19, 2023, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charmy2

I really wish it stood at its original 1,000 foot height, but its better than nothing...or the gigantic pit and an empty plot that's not pleasant to look at.

Same, but hopefully there will be enough demand in several years for the southern tower to go taller and revert closer back to the original scheme

BVictor1 · #**2157** Posted **Oct 19, 2023, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I suspect 840' is the zoning height, and 851' is the true structural height.

Waiting for bvic to confirm.....

I thought i had...

Last night they said 840' 🤷♂️

Sorry that's not clearer than it is... That's all that i can confirm.

ChiND · #**2158** Posted **Oct 19, 2023, 2:24 AM**

840’ is amazing!

skysoar · #**2159** Posted **Oct 19, 2023, 2:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiND

840’ is amazing!

But Urbanize is reporting the height at 858' ,so which one is it?

Steely Dan · #**2160** Posted **Oct 19, 2023, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I thought i had...

You never said if that 850'-9" figure you posted earlier was the zoning height or the true structural height.

Zoning heights are pretty irrelevant, useful only for making a project comply with the city's arcane zoning requirements.

At SSP, we only care about the full structural height.

That image you posted is cool, but I can't make out any of the numbers on it.