CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 121

honte · #**2401** Posted **Jul 29, 2007, 8:33 PM**

Lalucedm posted this article from Crain's over in the General Development thread. But since it mentions a tower of 25+ stories, I am reposting it here. Thanks, Lalucedm.

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25809

Excerpt from the article: "Roosevelt, which is playing catch-up with its larger rivals, is now embarking on the most ambitious building plan — a tower that could be at least 25 stories tall to open by 2011 on Wabash Avenue just south of Van Buren Street."

I suggest reading the article in full, because there is a lot more information there. Interesting concept includes selling air rights to a developer, somewhat similar to the Legacy project, and producing a taller building. Also of note, two buildings may be demolished: "425 S. Wabash and the skinny Fine Arts Annex at 421 S. Wabash."

Mr Man · #**2402** Posted **Jul 29, 2007, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Unless you have F16s in the air 24 hours a day flying around the city
a no fly zone doesnt protect .Its a stupid idea.They could not respond fast enought to do anything.Now missile batteries might do the trick!!

A no fly zone would do nothing to prevent terrorism, but could avoid some deadly accidents. The latter is far more common.

Pandemonious · #**2403** Posted **Jul 29, 2007, 9:36 PM**

I guess it was 660 N State I was walking by.. it seems to be moving pretty fast. Didn't have my camera with me today, and it was quite unfortunate as I saw a lot of great photo ops. This isn't a skyscraper, but the car dealership over at Clark and Maple has an AMAZING Ford GT-40 sitting right in the corner window. What a car.. man. It said sold on it.. won't be there for long

Also, The Wit is still under site-prep on page 1, but should be moved as it seems to be for sure U/C. I posted about it a few pages back now, and a few others I think mentioned it also.

i_am_hydrogen · #**2404** Posted **Jul 29, 2007, 9:51 PM**

Random shot of Allure at K Station from today:

i_am_hydrogen · #**2405** Posted **Jul 29, 2007, 10:17 PM**

Kingsbury Plaza, taken today:

BVictor1 · #**2406** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Lalucedm posted this article from Crain's over in the General Development thread. But since it mentions a tower of 25+ stories, I am reposting it here. Thanks, Lalucedm.

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25809

Excerpt from the article: "Roosevelt, which is playing catch-up with its larger rivals, is now embarking on the most ambitious building plan — a tower that could be at least 25 stories tall to open by 2011 on Wabash Avenue just south of Van Buren Street."

I suggest reading the article in full, because there is a lot more information there. Interesting concept includes selling air rights to a developer, somewhat similar to the Legacy project, and producing a taller building. Also of note, two buildings may be demolished: "425 S. Wabash and the skinny Fine Arts Annex at 421 S. Wabash."

I think that this project has a lot of potential. I think that the Crown Center is a piece of shit, and I'd gladly see it demolished, but I'd rather they keep the Fine Arts Annex.

Here are a few ideas:

-Tear down the Crown Center, buy the Fine Arts Annex and get it landmarked and get Adopt-A-Landmark density bonuses to build taller. They can have the future structure bridge over the annex, building on the site of the parking lot and hopefully demolished Crown Center.

-Every thing that I mentioned above, but instead of building on that small parking lot on Van Buren and Wabash, do a nice landscaped public space.

I think have an outside developer come in to utilize the unobstructed views of the lake and park are wise also.

Mr Downtown · #**2407** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Man

When this regulation was written, it was highly unlikely any skyscraper would be built exceeding 2000ft. Now that it's becoming more common-place, it is possible for regulations to be changed. Also remember, the 2000ft imposed limit is not a law

But it's rooted in case law (U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)). I believe only one broadcasting mast taller than 2000 feet has been approved since the FAA adopted this rule in 1965. I don't read the rule as a balancing test, I read it as a severe burden of proof on an applicant. It's hard to imagine what "clear and compelling showing" a developer could make that an inhabited building would not be a hazard to avigation.

Rocket1 · #**2408** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

14 CFR 77.13

(c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued.

It would be interesting to know whether the 2000 ft limit was something directed by Congress in law.

Or whether the FAA itself came up with the 2000 ft number. And if that's the case, perhaps someone like Trump could get the 2000 ft number knocked up to 3000 ft or more with a little bit of cash under the table.

GregBear24 · #**2409** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 3:56 AM**

^ This would all be a non-issue if the city became a no-fly zone. It's insane that it already isn't (9/11), but daley wants it to be.

SamInTheLoop · #**2410** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But it's rooted in case law (U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)). I believe only one broadcasting mast taller than 2000 feet has been approved since the FAA adopted this rule in 1965. I don't read the rule as a balancing test, I read it as a severe burden of proof on an applicant. It's hard to imagine what "clear and compelling showing" a developer could make that an inhabited building would not be a hazard to avigation.

Actually it seems that it could conceivably be reasonably easy - if a building can stand 2,000' tall and apparently not be a hazard, doesn't seem like such a stretch for a developer to present such a case for a building up to several hundred feet taller....... Again, it seems that this is something the FAA would just administratively sign-off on, it wouldn't be presided over in a court of law, correct?

SamInTheLoop · #**2411** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 4:09 AM**

Took the EL past Sat. 10 am - the tower crane had been removed. Took the EL past Sat. 10 pm - the tower crane had been re-erected. Quite peculiar. Anybody know the story?

pip · #**2412** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 6:07 AM**

Was in Edgewater today looking at apartments. Looked at a building on Granville. Anyway the Granville building is well underway.

BVictor1 · #**2413** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 2:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But it's rooted in case law (U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)). I believe only one broadcasting mast taller than 2000 feet has been approved since the FAA adopted this rule in 1965. I don't read the rule as a balancing test, I read it as a severe burden of proof on an applicant. It's hard to imagine what "clear and compelling showing" a developer could make that an inhabited building would not be a hazard to avigation.

Well, seeing as 2,000'+ tall structures have been proposed in the future, I don't see why something of this magnitude couldn't be done in the future. This country needs to stop being fearful of looking forward, and super-tall skyscraper living seems to be a wave of the future.

It won't be a severe burden if they are willing to compramise.

forumly_chgoman · #**2414** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 7:04 PM**

A no-fly over Chicago is assinine.....Ohare is one of the larger economic engines of the CHicago economy, it already has capacity issues, lets choke it off more by making it even more difficult to approach.

A no-fly is an over reaction to an historically highly unlikely event. Could there be a black swan...sure. But even w/ a no-fly the distance could be closed by a nose-diving commercial jet before interception could be realized.

museumparktom · #**2415** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 9:18 PM**

Kennedys, developer plan big Wolf Point project

(Crain’s) – A joint venture including the Kennedy family and a Texas developer aims to transform a long-vacant riverside property just west of the Merchandise Mart into a massive hotel, residential and office project anchored by an 89-story skyscraper.

read more: http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25853&seenIt=1

tintinex · #**2416** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 9:26 PM**

OMG here it is! better edit to include just the first sentence and a link to the article before it gets deleted...

bnk · #**2417** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 9:30 PM**

We are going to need to see the renders on this project.

j korzeniowski · #**2418** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 9:32 PM**

wow, that's some big, big news, but, as senor torres (funny, i know another miguel torres, but in ct) noted, there is a beef with crain's and this board so you best edit your post, 'parktom. excellent find.

GregBear24 · #**2419** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 9:33 PM**

Unless the 89 story building has 16 ft floors, this is a dissappointment.

wrab · #**2420** Posted **Jul 30, 2007, 9:35 PM**

^^^ Wow - this Wolf Point news is huge. Perhaps Pelli will revisit the old Skyneedle profile.