CHICAGO | 300 North LaSalle | 785 FT / 239 M | 60 FLOORS

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by newstl2020

Is there any particular reason for not placing the building against the river's edge, like the buildings on either side of it?

Go to post #349 on page 14 of this thread and check out the renderings of the river walk and public spaces.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Fabb

^The ground floor is surprisingly low. Unless it is going to be a basement floor when the tower is completed, maybe...

You may not be familiar with Chicago's decked streets. That picture is from behind the building, it only shows the alley side of the building. A lot of streets downtown Chicago have 2 levels and Lasalle at the river is one of them. So what you are seeing what should be the ground floor, but the street is one floor off the ground so it becomes a basement.

[nomarandlee]

I wonder if that alley will ever be decked over to meet up with LaSalle. That is where the eventual rapid transit is expected to run through if I am not mistaken anyway. Deck it over and you have you potentially have some nice little pedestrian space which is otherwise dead space.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I wonder if that alley will ever be decked over to meet up with LaSalle. That is where the eventual rapid transit is expected to run through if I am not mistaken anyway. Deck it over and you have you potentially have some nice little pedestrian space which is otherwise dead space.

A connection to the pedestrian walkway on Helen Curtis would create natural traffic as the only point to cross from Wells to LaSalle between Kinzie and Wacker.

[harryc]

The south crane has been attached to the steel, jump section can't be far behind ( above ).

[harryc]

Securing the S tower crane





Needs to "jump" soon.



New Elevator on N Side ( I like the wood veneer )

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by newstl2020

Is there any particular reason for not placing the building against the river's edge, like the buildings on either side of it?

I believe it is a city ordnance that new construction on the river must allow room for a riverwalk and public space on the waterfront.

[SolarWind]

September 28, 2007

[Busy Bee]

I believe it is a city ordnance that new construction on the river must allow room for a riverwalk and public space on the waterfront.

I have mixed feelings about this. While the riverwalk/promenade portion of the project will undoubtedly be fantastic, we will more than likely be forever viewing the exposed side of the Helen Curtis building. I hate to say it but I almost wish the Helen Curtis building wasn't there and the 300 Lasalle site stretched from the tracks on Wells to Lasalle creating a more contiguous vision for this location on the river.

I've also always wondered why more new buildings that are required to be setback don't make greater design efforts to conceal party walls and otherwise unsightly building sides from view. I know this is a more nagging problem in New York, where FAR regulations almost encourage such outcomes. In the case of 300, a diagonal jut or lower base setback the height of the Helen Curtis building could have been designed to mask and incorporate the building rather than ignore it. I suppose since that isn't going to happen, I can see some kind of metallic screen or even ivy being a good way of camouflaging the wall from view. Hopefully someone has already thought of this and not assumed that because the Helen Curtis building isn't their property, nothing can be done and no collaboration can be sought.

[honte]

^ Or, since now the private condo owners in Helene Curtis can feel confident they will always have a dedicated river view to the east, they might feel compelled to renovate the unadorned east side of their building with larger windows and a finished facade.

I've been looking at the same issue, and honestly, I don't think Helene Curtis distracts from the aesthetic of the plaza. In fact, I kind of like the smashing together of highbrow Class A offices and older, gritty River North industrial buildings.

_________

On another note, I am surprised I haven't seen a photo on here of the cool tension part of 300's north side, which is very similar in construction to the unexecuted (better) version of the Vetro tower.

[Rocket1]

Where's the Helen Curtis building located?

[honte]

^ We are talking about the small loft building to the west of 300's steel frame. If it pictureed to the left of 300 in SolarWind's photo above (which is lovely, as usual, by the way).

[Rocket1]

I agree the side of that loft building doesn't help things.

But it's not too bad, IMHO. (i.e. it could be quite a bit worse).

Painting it all the same color would help -- not sure why its aqua in some spots and gray in others.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I have mixed feelings about this. While the riverwalk/promenade portion of the project will undoubtedly be fantastic, we will more than likely be forever viewing the exposed side of the Helen Curtis building.

Too bad they aren't building the other riverwalk design.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Too bad they aren't building the other riverwalk design.

What other riverwalk design are you refering to spyguy?

[spyguy]

There was another design for this building's riverwalk and base that was substantially different and quite cool. It probably would have partially hidden Helen Curtis.

[Busy Bee]

Pics still around? Were these ever posted on SSP?

[harryc]

Taken this morning

Jump section installed, 2 new segments installed.

[Knightwing]

^I've never noticed the United Center in the background of that one.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I believe it is a city ordnance that new construction on the river must allow room for a riverwalk and public space on the waterfront.

It is. All new riverfront development since 1986 must provide at least a 30 foot setback, wich shall be open to the public no less than the hours of 9am-5pm M-F. Even Kinzie Park, the gated community, must provide public access to the riverwalk. All landscaping must be cared for by the property owner. Developers may then opt for making larger contributions, such as a larger setback or adding water features, which can grant them FAR bonuses.