CHICAGO | Halsted Point | 5 Towers | 691 - 309 FT | 65 - 28 FLOORS - Page 3

Zapatan · #41 Posted **Apr 16, 2021, 5:33 PM**

The designs of those towers are gorgeous, not too simple and ve'd. Just what Chicago needs.

BrinChi · #42 Posted **Apr 16, 2021, 5:39 PM**

Depending on the time between phases, I'd bet the design aesthetics will get mashed up as it's built. When has a mega-project ever fulfilled its original renderings through all the phases?

edit: sorry ardecila already pretty much said this above.

Blahshead · #43 Posted **Apr 17, 2021, 12:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

AGreed...this is nice and a better site plan than the original

BUT...i'd love to see less cohesion between these towers - the brick low-slung building is nice, how about a couple of these towers and a couple from he original version? (that rhomboid shaped one was nice)

Yes, but will it really be a brick building or just cardboard with stickers on the outside to make it look like brick?

left of center · #44 Posted **Apr 17, 2021, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

That depends on how long the buildout takes. Old Town Park and Wolf Point were able to be completed in one cycle, but this might take 2 or 3 cycles, like Lakeshore East. That would likely mean fresh designs for each tower or maybe even new architects. It would also give the city more time to build needed infrastructure.

Exactly this.

I would not worry about the towers looking all alike. The developers themselves said this buildout will take at least 10 years, so the chances that each of the 4 phases has a different design is pretty high. The original LSE renders had all (fairly ugly) towers looking like mirror images of each other, with varying heights. We ended up getting a very diverse collection of towers after 15-20 years.

Mister Uptempo · #45 Posted **Apr 17, 2021, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Halsted Point

Damn. I've been looking at this picture for over twenty minutes, and I still can't find Waldo. Anyone?

FlashingLights · #46 Posted **Apr 18, 2021, 4:14 AM**

I've worked on Goose Island for the last 10 years and all I can say is any development is positive.

SteelMonkey · #47 Posted **Apr 20, 2021, 11:28 AM**

Not sure if this was mentioned previously but appears the Riverside Development just south of Halsted Point is off the table now.

https://news.yahoo.com/developer-giv...204100670.html

Zapatan · #48 Posted **Apr 20, 2021, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelMonkey

Not sure if this was mentioned previously but appears the Riverside Development just south of Halsted Point is off the table now.

https://news.yahoo.com/developer-giv...204100670.html

1.2 msf of that was offices and now is not a good time to be building more office space downtown.

Hope that doesn't mean anything for this project.

ardecila · #49 Posted **Apr 20, 2021, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelMonkey

Not sure if this was mentioned previously but appears the Riverside Development just south of Halsted Point is off the table now.

https://news.yahoo.com/developer-giv...204100670.html

Keep an eye on the Tribune site, I have a feeling it will end up in one of the casino proposals. There aren't that many big vacant sites, this close to downtown. Traffic is a challenge but I'm sure there are some tweaks the city could make to let traffic flow a lot more smoothly.

LouisVanDerWright · #50 Posted **Apr 21, 2021, 12:29 AM**

O'Donnell cited this being included in the 20% ARO pilot area as a reason for cancellation in addition to Covid.

Obvious side effect of saddling developers with cumbersome "do gooder" regulation that flies in the face of market forces: less housing.

BVictor1 · #51 Posted **Apr 21, 2021, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

O'Donnell cited this being included in the 20% ARO pilot area as a reason for cancellation in addition to Covid.

Obvious side effect of saddling developers with cumbersome "do gooder" regulation that flies in the face of market forces: less housing.

His argument is pretty bunk when ONNI is doing 20% and when North Union is doing 20% and when all these projects north of Lake Street in Fulton Market are being proposed with 20%.

Sounds like he just doesn't want to deal with affordable housing.

glowrock · #52 Posted **Apr 21, 2021, 1:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Keep an eye on the Tribune site, I have a feeling it will end up in one of the casino proposals. There aren't that many big vacant sites, this close to downtown. Traffic is a challenge but I'm sure there are some tweaks the city could make to let traffic flow a lot more smoothly.

I think you're probably right, ardecila. And frankly, I think it's a great location for it! Only major issue, of course, is traffic, but I'm sure something can be worked out.

Aaron (Glowrock)

LouisVanDerWright · #53 Posted **Apr 23, 2021, 2:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

His argument is pretty bunk when ONNI is doing 20% and when North Union is doing 20% and when all these projects north of Lake Street in Fulton Market are being proposed with 20%.

That kind of puts the "do gooder" theory regarding the ARO to rest.

Omni specializes in affordable projects, it's an entirely different game where your profit comes in the form of tax credits.

Also the rents between the tribune site and prime West Loop sites are probably significantly lower.

Bonsai Tree · #54 Posted **Apr 23, 2021, 7:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Omni specializes in affordable projects, it's an entirely different game where your profit comes in the form of tax credits.

Also the rents between the tribune site and prime West Loop sites are probably significantly lower.

Honestly, (although I couldn't give you exact figures) I think that the 20% affordability is fine for most developers, as long as they get tax credits. Problem is, I don't think developers want to deal with the sh*tshow of bureaucratic government.

ChiPlanner · #55 Posted **Apr 23, 2021, 1:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

Honestly, (although I couldn't give you exact figures) I think that the 20% affordability is fine for most developers, as long as they get tax credits. Problem is, I don't think developers want to deal with the sh*tshow of bureaucratic government.

Speaking as someone who has an insiders knowledge of this sector, certain large for profit developers in NYC/Chicago are currently take advantage and love the world of government subsidized financing as a tradeoff for some affordable units. *cough* Related *cough*

Randomguy34 · #56 Posted **May 25, 2021, 5:47 PM**

Zoning app is up, no notable changes: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

r18tdi · #57 Posted **Aug 16, 2021, 7:44 PM**

Oh hell yes, the tallest building will now rise 691' according to the latest plans.
https://urbanize.city/chicago/post/h...-design-change

BVictor1 · #58 Posted **Aug 16, 2021, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Oh hell yes, the tallest building will now rise 691' according to the latest plans.
https://urbanize.city/chicago/post/h...-design-change

Plan Commission Presentation:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...on_8.16.21.pdf

the urban politician · #59 Posted **Aug 16, 2021, 8:27 PM**

These huge master planned developments right along rivers and bodies of water sure must be popular for developers because they pretty much never have to build through streets.

Great excuse for cul-de-sacs, which are attractive to future residents who value privacy and have "safety" concerns

Chi-Sky21 · #60 Posted **Aug 16, 2021, 9:16 PM**

Not really much of a spot for a through street on this one.