CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 71

HomrQT · #**1401** Posted **Mar 1, 2019, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

The mile high tower would have been slightly out of proportion to the rest of the skyline.

They said the same about the JHC. Let's aim big and then fill in the gaps later.

KWillChicago · #**1402** Posted **Mar 2, 2019, 12:09 AM**

Wasn't mile high supposed to be in the N/W suburbs?

HomrQT · #**1403** Posted **Mar 2, 2019, 2:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Wasn't mile high supposed to be in the N/W suburbs?

According to the Tribune:

Quote:

Wright had no client and no confirmed site for his proposed skyscraper, which was never built and never forgotten.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu...-mile-high-met-0528-20170528-column.html

Both that Tribune link and the wikipedia page for the project say it was intended to be built in Chicago. Don't know if the Tribune would call the NW burbs "Chicago".

Arteagaal · #**1404** Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 3:36 PM**

This is the only building I hope doesn't get built. This plot of land is in too prime of a position in the city for something like this. I'd like to see whichever company decides to build on this site to use the site to its full potential. A nice building or monument that greets any one with a hulking stand on top of the city's shoulders that lets them know they're in Chicago.

chicagodeckerdude · #**1405** Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arteagaal

This is the only building I hope doesn't get built. This plot of land is in too prime of a position in the city for something like this. I'd like to see whichever company decides to build on this site to use the site to its full potential. A nice building or monument that greets any one with a hulking stand on top of the city's shoulders that lets them know they're in Chicago.

Really? I like these two towers...the style and shape of them.

Skyguy_7 · #**1406** Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 4:31 PM**

This is one of the most unique proposals we have at the moment. "Twin", tall, terra cotta, Chicago School, with setbacks galore. Nothing to complain about, in my opinion.

rgarri4 · #**1407** Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 4:40 PM**

It is a significant site for sure, but I wouldn't call it the location that greets you to Chicago. Not everyone enters Chicago by boat through the mouth of the river. Because of that, this design works perfectly for me. Really hope they build it.

RedCorsair87 · #**1408** Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 6:29 PM**

I think this proposal looks stunning from east/west, but I'm not crazy about it looking north/south. That said, I absolutely want to see this built. Two terracotta towers? Yes, please!

donnie · #**1409** Posted **Apr 14, 2019, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blupo

Here are a couple of programming/detail slides that I snapped during tonight's meeting. For the poster asking about the questions that the crowd was asking, most were related to traffic concerns, particularly along East North Water Street.

Here you go bud....

chris08876 · #**1410** Posted **Apr 14, 2019, 8:00 PM**

Wow, 1200 units between hotel/rentals/condos. Now that's fantastic. Always a fan of high density developments.

Hopefully they up the density of units.

Although the parking spots are not desired.

BVictor1 · #**1411** Posted **Apr 15, 2019, 7:25 AM**

I'm wondering if the hotel component will be nixed? I think that was the complaints from the whiners of North East Water Street... Traffic from the hotel. That and public access along Ogden Slip.

Hourstrooper · #**1412** Posted **Apr 15, 2019, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Thanks for the info, but I didn't realize the hotel was in the taller tower, I always thought it was in the other one. That's really bad news, that means that when they remove the hotel component we'll basically just get two 8-900 foot towers. Absolutely lame and unacceptable for a site like this. I expect better from a city like Chicago.

Not necessarily, They could just roll some units from the other tower over. itll still be over 1000 feet for sure and they know vista and the tribune are coming in the area and with one bennet park next door they are going to want to be at least taller than it. They have the zoning for a supertall so they will use it.

LouisVanDerWright · #**1413** Posted **Apr 15, 2019, 3:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

Not necessarily, They could just roll some units from the other tower over. itll still be over 1000 feet for sure and they know vista and the tribune are coming in the area and with one bennet park next door they are going to want to be at least taller than it. They have the zoning for a supertall so they will use it.

Both Wolf Point South and One Chicago Square have supertall zoning so you are right...

Oh wait...

UPChicago · #**1414** Posted **Apr 15, 2019, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

they are going to want to be at least taller than it

the only thing they want is to turn a profit

Hourstrooper · #**1415** Posted **Apr 15, 2019, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago

the only thing they want is to turn a profit

I mean or they could just do 1 tower

Ricochet48 · #**1416** Posted **Apr 16, 2019, 12:29 AM**

I've 'heard' a new press release is coming soon.

This is happening, just revised...

BonoboZill4 · #**1417** Posted **Apr 16, 2019, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricochet48

I've 'heard' a new press release is coming soon.

This is happening, just revised...

Great news!

HomrQT · #**1418** Posted **Apr 16, 2019, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricochet48

I've 'heard' a new press release is coming soon.

This is happening, just revised...

Oh man, that sounds equally hopeful and ominous. =p

pianowizard · #**1419** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 1:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago

the only thing they want is to turn a profit

Is it cheaper to build two 700-900 ft skyscrapers than one 1,200-1,500 ft supertall of the same total square footage? I would think the latter is cheaper than the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Or terrible news, we'll see

Merging the two buildings into a supertall would be great news!

Zerton · #**1420** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Is it cheaper to build two 700-900 ft skyscrapers than one 1,200-1,500 ft supertall of the same total square footage? I would think the latter is cheaper than the former.

It depends (it is generally cheaper to build two shorter towers), however the decision often actually comes down to leasable space. In a very tall tower, mechanical chases and elevator shafts eat up a lot of the floor space on the lower floors. So much so that it is usually more economical to build two shorter towers where more of the floor space throughout both can devoted to space the developer can sell.

However, residential towers aren't effected as much because they have much lower traffic within compared to commercial buildings. That's why we see those needle thin residential towers rising; they only need like 4 elevator shafts all the way up. Tall commercial buildings and hotels often need dozens of elevator shafts.