CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 3

BVictor1 · #41 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 5:04 AM**

We have another one about to kick off. I drove past Lexington Park over there at Michigan and Cermack, and I noticed a crane is in the process of being assybled, and there are stacks of steel piles on site. This one should start sometime this week or sometime next week. Im sure that many people here forgot that project existed

SamInTheLoop · #42 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 5:06 AM**

It will be interesting to see 155 N. Wacker race out ahead and believe it or not actually beat 353 N. Clark to completion. The reason? - 155 is a very fast-track project, as their anchor tenant moves in July 2009, per CoStar (this should give Buck just about exactly 24 months from first caisson work. I'm assuming 155 will make it to Plan Commission either this month or next...

SamInTheLoop · #43 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

We have another one about to kick off. I drove past Lexington Park over there at Michigan and Cermack, and I noticed a crane is in the process of being assybled, and there are stacks of steel piles on site. This one should start sometime this week or sometime next week. Im sure that many people here forgot that project existed

Cool! I like this one. Also, planned to be one of the first LEED-certified residential high-rises in town...

DePaul Bunyan · #44 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 6:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Oh yeah, I forgot about the pandemonious mystery tower! That's rediculous that we could have another three supertalls (mystery tower, possilbe LSE, and Possible Rosevelt and Michigan) announced within this next quarter in addition to the three (WV, Trump, CS) that we already know of.

Doesn't Carley have something in the works with another developer that's at least 70 floors? If it's mid to upper 70s with ballrooms and a few lobbies, I could see Carley compensating for blowing the Fordham thing and adding a spire to make it 1000 feet.

SamInTheLoop · #45 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 12:34 PM**

I must have missed the official call here, because I was peering down on the site from the AON Center yesterday, and concrete was definitely being poured again on the South Tower of 600 N Lake Shore Drive.....

brian_b · #46 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 1:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Steely, for what it's worth regarding the Michigan City proposal, I work in downtown Chicago and a co-worker commutes every day from Michigan City on the South Shore....i.e. it actually is a commuter suburb with direct ties to the city, and of course the casino will heavily target Chicagoans.

I know people that commute in from Michigan City as well.

On the flip side, I use the South Shore to get out to MC and do outlet shopping, as the outlet mall is a quick walk (maybe 6 blocks?) from the "station" at 11th street. As far as I can tell, none of the other outlet malls in the metro area can be reached anywhere near as easily without a car. And I've also noticed that I'm not the only one that walks from the South Shore to the mall.

Monkey36 · #47 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 1:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Sure - Sales will be launched at The St. Clair near the end of April. I think all ceilings will be at least 10'. Hopefully they have a strong grand opening to move this one along...

thanks

Steely Dan · #48 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

All right, that Evanston rumor turns out to be Fountain Square. The corner building will be demolished and turned into a public plaza, which disappoints me because I think it is under-appreciated. Very Adolph Loos. The new building will be trapezoidal in shape to reflect the site geometry. Drawings might be seen as soon as tomorrow.

thanks for the news. did you get any info about the height? a floor count perhaps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

The tower is going to look good - don't worry. It's better than the last proposal as far as I know.

god i hope so, focus development's track record (church street station, sherman plaza) gives me absolutely zero expectation that they'll actually do something architectually interesting. i hope they've learned the error of their banal ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Anyhow, how tall was the last design for that proposal in Evanston? Wasn't it like 25 or 30 stories?

the previous fountain square proposal from roczak development was a very glassy 38 story mixed use tower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by altfelix

I don't necessarily disagree, but technically Fox Lake and the Savanna Grand is not in the Chicago Urbanized Area, but in the Round Lake Beach-McHenry-Grayslake, IL-WI Urbanized Area (you can all chuckle). The rural gaps between RLB-M-G & Chicago are only a little smaller than the rural gaps between MC & Chicago, at least in 2000.

good point, i guess i should add it then for consistency's sake.

Nowhereman1280 · #49 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Doesn't Carley have something in the works with another developer that's at least 70 floors? If it's mid to upper 70s with ballrooms and a few lobbies, I could see Carley compensating for blowing the Fordham thing and adding a spire to make it 1000 feet.

Well if that happens, then we're moving into Dubai territory with seven supertalls built within 5 or 6 years. That brings up a question, what exactly is the supertall count in other major cities in the world? Dubai will easily be the world leader in a few years, but, assuming just 4 or 5 of the current supertalls we have on tap get built, in addition to Sears, JHC, Aon, wouldn't that put Chicago in for second most supertalls, or close to it?

honte · #50 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

thanks for the news. did you get any info about the height? a floor count perhaps?

>= 40 stories.

Steely Dan · #51 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

>= 40 stories.

so that translates to "greater than or equal to 40 stories", or put another way "not less than 40 stories". that's great! evanston's skyline is coming along nicely, but it definitely needs a peak, a focal point. honte, do you know how this new scheme handles the landmark hahn building on site? are they proposing a facadectomy as well? what about the building on the north end of the block? that one has been mentioned for landmark protection as well. the fountain square block would be an absolutely perfect spot for a skyline peak tower, but the problem is that the old low-rise buildings currently on site are actually quite nice. the price of progress i suppose.

honte · #52 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 3:58 PM**

^ I don't know. I don't anticipate any problems there, but we'll have to wait and see. I would be very unhappy if the rear end of the block got screwed-up, even more so than the corner building to the south. I think in this case the "price of progress" could be fairly small by using the same old equation: Build taller on a smaller parcel; leave the good stuff alone.

Nowhereman1280 · #53 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

>= 40 stories.

Holy Crap! So basically Evanston has a good chance of out-skylining Milwaukee in the near future huh? Granted Fountain Square will probably have a lot of residential, if not all residential whereas US Bank is all office, so it will probably be shorter than US Bank, but still, 40+ stories in Evanston, quite surprising...

Kngkyle · #54 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Well if that happens, then we're moving into Dubai territory with seven supertalls built within 5 or 6 years. That brings up a question, what exactly is the supertall count in other major cities in the world? Dubai will easily be the world leader in a few years, but, assuming just 4 or 5 of the current supertalls we have on tap get built, in addition to Sears, JHC, Aon, wouldn't that put Chicago in for second most supertalls, or close to it?

Chicago currently has more supertalls (300m+) built than any other city. To keep that title we have to keep up with Dubai obviously. With the new WTC that will boost NY up there too, but hell those won't be done for another 100 years.

Steely Dan · #55 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Holy Crap! So basically Evanston has a good chance of out-skylining Milwaukee in the near future huh?.

don't be silly. milwaukee is a big city skyline, made with component skyscrapers accumulated over 100 years, giving it a texture that a suburb like evanston could never hope to achieve. let's also not forget that milwaukee's skyline is made up of about 80 highrise buildings, the tallest of which reaches just over 600'. evanston on the other hand is a relative new comer to the skyline game, with around a dozen highrise buildings comprising its skyline, the tallest of which currently stands ~280'. even if this fountain square tower proposal goes forward, we'd still only be looking at something in the 400' range max., which would be HUGE for evanston, but would hardly allow it to start "out-skylining" a city like milwaukee.

nergie · #56 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle2

Chicago currently has more supertalls (300m+) built than any other city. To keep that title we have to keep up with Dubai obviously. With the new WTC that will boost NY up there too, but hell those won't be done for another 100 years.

HK is another contender in this category.

Nowhereman1280 · #57 Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

don't be silly. milwaukee is a big city skyline, made with component skyscrapers accumulated over 100 years, giving it a texture that a suburb like evanston could never hope to achieve. let's also not forget that milwaukee's skyline is made up of about 80 highrise buildings, the tallest of which reaches just over 600'. evanston on the other hand is a relative new comer to the skyline game, with around a dozen highrise buildings comprising its skyline, the tallest of which currently stands ~280'. even if this fountain square tower proposal goes forward, we'd still only be looking at something in the 400' range max., which would be HUGE for evanston, but would hardly allow it to start "out-skylining" a city like milwaukee.

Yeah, I know it will never have the mass, but 40+ stories made me think that they may get something taller than US Bank before us poor Milwaukeeians do! But I guess I forgot that US Bank is all office so therefore quite a bit taller than residential buildings.

APPRAISER · #58 Posted **Apr 4, 2007, 1:04 AM**

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but I heard that Milwaukee can't build very tall highrises due being located on an old swamp like Chicago, and the bedrock is too deep.
Is this true?

Nowhereman1280 · #59 Posted **Apr 4, 2007, 1:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by APPRAISER

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but I heard that Milwaukee can't build very tall highrises due being located on an old swamp like Chicago, and the bedrock is too deep.
Is this true?

Not really, I grew up there and am a huge geography and history dork, the old parts of town, along the river and in the port were swamp like Chicago, but other than that, Milwaukee is amazingly different from Chicago. Most of downtown is built about 50-100 ft above the lake on big bluffs, compare that to Chicago which is just about level (even lower in some places) with the lake.

You might be right about the bedrock being deeper than Chicago though, since the city is another 50-100 ft above the lake, that could mean another 50-100 ft of clay to bore through to get to bedrock, which could make building buildings that require cassions down to bedrock prohibatively expensive.

Most of the reason Milwaukee doesn't have really tall skyscrapers is a combination of lack of demand and oddles of open space (i.e. park east freeway area) to build 5 story headquarters on (i.e. Manpower which really wimped out and is building a big lowrise as their new international headquarters).

Since I moved here to Chicago I really have been quite amazed at home similar Milwaukee and Chicago manage to be (Milwaukee is in many ways a "miniature" version of Chicago) while remaining so completely different...

APPRAISER · #60 Posted **Apr 4, 2007, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Not really, I grew up there and am a huge geography and history dork, the old parts of town, along the river and in the port were swamp like Chicago, but other than that, Milwaukee is amazingly different from Chicago. Most of downtown is built about 50-100 ft above the lake on big bluffs, compare that to Chicago which is just about level (even lower in some places) with the lake.

You might be right about the bedrock being deeper than Chicago though, since the city is another 50-100 ft above the lake, that could mean another 50-100 ft of clay to bore through to get to bedrock, which could make building buildings that require cassions down to bedrock prohibatively expensive.

Most of the reason Milwaukee doesn't have really tall skyscrapers is a combination of lack of demand and oddles of open space (i.e. park east freeway area) to build 5 story headquarters on (i.e. Manpower which really wimped out and is building a big lowrise as their new international headquarters).

Since I moved here to Chicago I really have been quite amazed at home similar Milwaukee and Chicago manage to be (Milwaukee is in many ways a "miniature" version of Chicago) while remaining so completely different...

Thanks!!
I went to college at UWM for architecture, but changed, and that's what I thought I heard. It was a while ago back in 1998.
I agree, Milwaukee is a miniature Chicago! Summerfest is the best! I used to live on Kramer and go the the bars on North Ave!
Great time!!