CHICAGO | NEMA Chicago | 896 FT | 81 FLOORS - Page 15

rlw777 · #1 Posted **Mar 3, 2016, 4:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go go white sox

Was this project approved already?

Back in Nov

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

Approved! Crescent Heights said that they have financing in place and want to put shovels in the ground ASAP.

BVictor1 · #2 Posted **Mar 8, 2016, 11:22 PM**

03/08/16

SamInTheLoop · #3 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 3:34 PM**

^ Sweet sight.....

In terms of units, what is the count on this one again? Will this have more units than 235 W Van Buren? If so, won't this one have more units than any residential tower built in Chicago in decades?.....

ithakas · #4 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Sweet sight.....

In terms of units, what is the count on this one again? Will this have more units than 235 W Van Buren? If so, won't this one have more units than any residential tower built in Chicago in decades?.....

792 units when announced, not sure if it's changed since.

brian_b · #5 Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

792 units when announced, not sure if it's changed since.

It's part of a PD that has somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 allowed units remaining to be split between 3 building sites. If the number of units in this building changes, the other 2 will be adjusted accordingly.

BVictor1 · #6 Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_b

It's part of a PD that has somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 allowed units remaining to be split between 3 building sites. If the number of units in this building changes, the other 2 will be adjusted accordingly.

Remember, phase 3 of this won't be a single structure, but townhouses around another redundant park where the old sales center used to be.

Mr Downtown · #7 Posted **Mar 11, 2016, 8:17 PM**

Exactly. Having despoiled Grant Park by putting all their units in towers with jetliner views, they have to piss away the final parcel on a useless little dog-poop park and some townhouses. It's why we say that Chicago has a Department of Planning and Development, where the Planning is silent.

SamInTheLoop · #8 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 3:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. Having despoiled Grant Park by putting all their units in towers with jetliner views, they have to piss away the final parcel on a useless little dog-poop park and some townhouses. It's why we say that Chicago has a Department of Planning and Development, where the Planning is silent.

True, but we do have an elected body of 50 planners, remember.....

Shwayze1994 · #9 Posted **Mar 12, 2016, 12:23 AM**

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but how dumb is it to build a park right next to an amazing park. It makes no sense. Or the idea of townhouses, eventually this will be a dense area, 50 years down the road as the skyline moves in a southward direction. Also why not just sit on that last parcel of land and just wait it out till the market is ripe and build an even taller tower to still get the views and the units needed. Maybe there's more to it that I don't understand, but I see it that way.

Mr Downtown · #10 Posted **Mar 12, 2016, 2:48 AM**

Developers aren't big on delayed gratification.

20 years from now there might not be so many Chinese investors with excess money they need to park in the US.

the urban politician · #11 Posted **Mar 12, 2016, 4:13 AM**

Those townhouses are probably an epic investment right now.

Mr Downtown · #12 Posted **Mar 12, 2016, 8:52 PM**

It's downtown Chicago. Zoning and planning have nothing to do with it. They could presumably go to 2000 feet, with an FAR somewhere in the 20s.

ChiHi · #13 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 5:00 PM**

Looks like some neighborhood group that I've never heard of started a petition about the project. Like most NIMBY groups I'm sure their lack of good points is made up for with lots of passion. Other than the parking count I'm pretty much on board with the tower.

http://southloop.webs.com/

BVictor1 · #14 Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiHi

Looks like some neighborhood group that I've never heard of started a petition about the project. Like most NIMBY groups I'm sure their lack of good points is made up for with lots of passion. Other than the parking count I'm pretty much on board with the tower.

http://southloop.webs.com/

Funny thing is, the same people will complain about the lack of parking in the neighborhood. You go to these meetings and they bitch and moan bout inadequate parking in the area with so places for when friends and family come to visit.

Fine, lower the number of spaces and reduce the back base height from 17 floors to 13 or 14 floors. You know they'll find something else to complain about.

They want underground parking in an area that's virtually landfill. Are they planning on paying for the expense?

brian_b · #15 Posted **Apr 9, 2016, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiHi

Looks like some neighborhood group that I've never heard of started a petition about the project. Like most NIMBY groups I'm sure their lack of good points is made up for with lots of passion. Other than the parking count I'm pretty much on board with the tower.

http://southloop.webs.com/

These are the same NIMBYs that were ready to destroy PDNA and forced Dowell to replace the planned fix for overcrowding at South Loop Elementary with a school plan that was so toxic it never saw the light of day (anyone remember the public meetings for this building last year when she said she was hoping to unveil a school plan by November/December?). She's lucky city hall leaked it to people that could talk to her in private and bring her to her senses. Hopefully she's learned not to listen to this NIMBY group again.

SamInTheLoop · #16 Posted **Apr 11, 2016, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_b

These are the same NIMBYs that were ready to destroy PDNA and forced Dowell to replace the planned fix for overcrowding at South Loop Elementary with a school plan that was so toxic it never saw the light of day (anyone remember the public meetings for this building last year when she said she was hoping to unveil a school plan by November/December?). She's lucky city hall leaked it to people that could talk to her in private and bring her to her senses. Hopefully she's learned not to listen to this NIMBY group again.

You have my attention now.....sounds fascinating.....don't want to veer off-topic here, but would love to know more of this story......I just wonder what that group proposed, and how they were able to convince the alderman of something that apparently should have been obvious to her as a non-starter..........it's a little scary how some of these wacky nimby groups can catapult form the woodwork seemingly overnight and unleash their crazy views onto some poor alderslob who's only too happy to entertain their views for pander opportunities.......(this is not to say that I disagree with all the points this one laid out - I don't actually.....however my understanding is this is now fully entitled - having just completed the process, and all that's left now would appear to be permits - so the time is past for them)........for another example, I'm thinking of that newish nimby splinter group that popped up in the West Loop - the real militant one that was holding up - and ridiculously forced changes to (through the alderslob) the 111 S Peoria project, now being entitled in changed form......

SamInTheLoop · #17 Posted **May 25, 2016, 4:06 PM**

I'd be watching for permits and activity down this way. Person I know who lives adjacent to site mentioned recently that notices went out early this month that stated something like (iirc) construction will be beginning in the next several weeks, as early as (I think) the end of May. While I don't think that will be achieved, June would seem to be fully in play for at least major site prep to begin.....

My guess would be that this one starts construction officially before Vista does....(maybe by a few weeks-1.5 months or so?).....

Jibba · #18 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 6:20 PM**

^There's nothing unreasonable about their concerns, save for point #4. I can't possibly understand how someone can expect to prohibit the production of homes because of the effect that the increase in supply will have to their own home value. That's an embarrassing plea to air publicly.

rlw777 · #19 Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

^There's nothing unreasonable about their concerns, save for point #4. I can't possibly understand how someone can expect to prohibit the production of homes because of the effect that the increase in supply will have to their own home value. That's an embarrassing plea to air publicly.

It gets a little more ridiculous on the petition page where they claim that

Quote:

adequate notice to neighborhood residents was not given and most residents were not aware of the scope, details and timeline of this project.

This was a high profile announcement there is no reason they shouldn't have gotten their shit together a while ago.

Kumdogmillionaire · #20 Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

^There's nothing unreasonable about their concerns, save for point #4. I can't possibly understand how someone can expect to prohibit the production of homes because of the effect that the increase in supply will have to their own home value. That's an embarrassing plea to air publicly.

Point two is total bullshit too in my opinion. The North Side of the park has the exact same situation, just more buildings.

Point 3 is kind of stupid too, they are over estimating what 1200 parked cars will actually lead to in terms of traffic.

Really the only legit gripe I see is point 1 because of the previously built buildings, but not really too concerned with their loss