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

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by SafetyFirst

Why are people upset at Related Midwest? They proposed a great design. The alderman and NIMBY's killed it.

Because forums

It's stupid. I would have loved a taller design from the get-go, but it was still high quality. Related does good work in this city. Maybe they don't do great work, but it is very good. And people on this forum act like they are killing the city.

This was all the alderman.

[rgolch]

I agree with everyone that the loss of height is a disappointment. And not unexpected from Related. But overall, I still think they’ll be nice towers.

As much as I love super talls being added to the city, I’m actually more excited about new sections of the city being added in the form of the 78 and Lincoln Yards. I think developments like that will make more of an impact on Chicago than just more tall buildings. More super talls will come with time. And Vista is such an amazing addition that it takes some of the sting out of these buildings height chops.

[rgarri4]

Well we saw the height chop coming. I wish it wasn't so much. It's hard to tell by the rendering quality if the details are the same as the previous design. I hope they are. Otherwise it will just blend in with the rest of LSD. I wonder why they flip flopped the location of the taller tower. I will definitely be in attendance next week.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

Well we saw the height chop coming. I wish it wasn't so much. It's hard to tell by the rendering quality if the details are the same as the previous design. I hope they are. Otherwise it will just blend in with the rest of LSD. I wonder why they flip flopped the location of the taller tower. I will definitely be in attendance next week.

Agreed with rgarri. If the details and materials stay the same, I'll still be happy. Maybe it's just my coping mechanism, but I sort of think this is a good height for this spot. With Vista, Trump, and hopefully the Tribune addition standing taller behind it, I think a slight 'tenting' of the skyline towards the heart of the city will be more aesthetically pleasing; drawing your eye inward and upward. I feel a supertall at this point would act like a sort of wall between the skyline and lake

[gebs]

No, this can't be right. This is the worst thing they could have done. Maybe the market will tank and we'll get a megatall next cycle. Or not, and the design will have gotten VE'd to death too. Well, at least it's a nice building and maybe we don't need a huge building here.

[The five stages of grief in one post.]

[Steely Dan]

off topic posts have been moved to the general discussions thread: https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208431

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

Agreed with rgarri. If the details and materials stay the same, I'll still be happy. Maybe it's just my coping mechanism, but I sort of think this is a good height for this spot. With Vista, Trump, and hopefully the Tribune addition standing taller behind it, I think a slight 'tenting' of the skyline towards the heart of the city will be more aesthetically pleasing; drawing your eye inward and upward. I feel a supertall at this point would act like a sort of wall between the skyline and lake

While I agree the "tent" concept makes for a more pleasing to the eye view, and Chicago has that neat effect at certain angles, I would still prefer supertall monsters sprouting up everywhere and anywhere we can get them. As long as they have decent designs of course.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JK47

So you think that they shrank the height but increased the quality of the materials and increased the complexity and beauty of the original design? That height alone was the only sacrifice made in the name of budget? I mean hell, they added terracotta to it when they chopped 900 feet off the first proposal so perhaps they're going to coat it in platinum now that its been reduced a further 200 feet.

I mean sure, we'll see on the 10th, but it's a bit delusional to think that the design got better at this point.

i fail to see why it's delusional to think that the overall design language and detailing might have stayed consistent with what we saw before the big height chop?

all we know right now is that the hotel component has been removed, about 225' have been taken off of the taller tower & 85' taken off of the shorter tower, and they have swapped their relative positions.

anything beyond that at this point is just people talking out of their asses.

much more will be hopefully learned on the 10th.

[ChiPsy]

The twin twigs -- Thanks, Brendan Reilly.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

Agreed with rgarri. If the details and materials stay the same, I'll still be happy. Maybe it's just my coping mechanism, but I sort of think this is a good height for this spot. With Vista, Trump, and hopefully the Tribune addition standing taller behind it, I think a slight 'tenting' of the skyline towards the heart of the city will be more aesthetically pleasing; drawing your eye inward and upward. I feel a supertall at this point would act like a sort of wall between the skyline and lake

This is honestly how I feel and I don't think it's a coping mechanism for me. The strength of Chicago's skyline is in part due to it's incredible balance, and the stunning views from the lake. A super tall here could block architectural gems of the present and future. Having shorter towers along the lakefront increases the depth of the skyline, IMO. I should note that I'm not as much as a height fiend as many on this forum, though; I love supertalls when we can get them but I like density and proportion of the city as a whole much more than height of singular towers.

Though I'm not a huge fan of the alignment of the two tower design. I'll wait for more renderings but it creates a weird dead space...

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by Handro

This is honestly how I feel and I don't think it's a coping mechanism for me. The strength of Chicago's skyline is in part due to it's incredible balance, and the stunning views from the lake. A super tall here could block architectural gems of the present and future. Having shorter towers along the lakefront increases the depth of the skyline, IMO. I should note that I'm not as much as a height fiend as many on this forum, though; I love supertalls when we can get them but I like density and proportion of the city as a whole much more than height of singular towers.

Though I'm not a huge fan of the alignment of the two tower design. I'll wait for more renderings but it creates a weird dead space...

Interesting note on the alignment, and I'm not sure where I fall on this matter. On one hand, the new alignment resembles the skyline 'tent poling" with the shorter tower next to the river helping to direct your eye up from the river to the taller tower to the north (if you're on the lake). In effect helping to create a sloped canyon wall effect. On the other, having the tallest tower near the river's edge may give the impression that the tower is taller than it really is. From the river, you'd have a totally free and open look at the full-height of the tower. It's a good problem to have either way.

[trvlr70]

In any other city in America (besides NYC), this 2-tower deal would be HUGE positive news. Can you imagine if St. Louis had this proposal? Or, Denver? It remains an amazing development. It only artificially feels like a let down because we had earlier, unrealistic proposals of greater height.

[Zapatan]

I wish they had kept the South Tower as the taller one, looks a bit odd now regardless of height.

Originally Posted by trvlr70

In any other city in America (besides NYC), this 2-tower deal would be HUGE positive news. Can you imagine if St. Louis had this proposal? Or, Denver? It remains an amazing development. It only artificially feels like a let down because we had earlier, unrealistic proposals of greater height.

This is true, but how was the height unrealistic? As said before Chicago was building 350-450 meter buildings in the 60's/70's. Even a 2000 footer shouldn't be out of the question today. 1100 doesn't even crack the city's top 5 or global 100.

I'd note Chicago and NYC aren't "other American cities", it's all relative.

[Downtowntransplant]

I think the fact the taller is further away from Vista is better. Less overshadowed by Vista and allows it to stick out as the tallest building in southern Streeterville more.

I’m torn but I think I’d prefer if the “steps” side of the building was on the western side instead of the east, as it currently will be. I think it would be an elegant addition to the skyline from Wacker Drive/within the city.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

I thought Tribune was having pretty good sales? I'm not sure where I heard this but I thought they were looking at around 25% sold or under contract right now?

Of the existing building, possibly... but the new tower hasn’t even been approved yet. 25% is not a great sales figure for a building that’s already under construction, where the anxiety about the project getting off the drawing board has been eliminated. And Tribune is a massively better location, especially for people who want to live in their condo full-time. Tribune is literally on Michigan Avenue and easy walking distance to the entire Mag Mile and River North entertainment areas, grocery, transit, etc. Hard to imagine a better condo site, so if even that is struggling, it’s a poor sign for the strength of the high-end market.

The Spire site offers good views of the lake, and that’s it. A lot of the condo buyers today (elder Millennials and some retirees, but it’s not a huge buyer pool overall) want to buy in an area that offers urban amenities right out the front door, and not just a birds eye view of those amenities from a mile away.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Spire site offers good views of the lake, and that’s it. A lot of the condo buyers today (elder Millennials and some retirees, but it’s not a huge buyer pool overall) want to buy in an area that offers urban amenities right out the front door, and not just a birds eye view of those amenities from a mile away.

even more of a case to keep the hotel component!

[BuildThemTaller]

Folks, there is a Target not even a 1,000 feet from the Spire site. As an "Elder Millennial," living mere steps from the Lakeshore would be awesome were I able to afford it.

[the urban politician]

The condo market in Chicago is just plain weak. I don’t see that changing for a long time.

I think people still have bitter memories of the 2008 bust.

People also want more mobility. They want something that has good resale value as well. Condos just don’t provide the latter the way that a reasonably sized SFH would. Besides, condo associations are a pain in the ass—I know, I own a downtown condo. Regular emails, new rules about this or that, warnings about new policies and fines, I mean if I’m going to be treated like a renter than I might as well just be one!

I don’t blame Related for going with apartments here—ultimately it will be a more valuable asset.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The condo market in Chicago is just plain weak. I don’t see that changing for a long time.

I think people still have bitter memories of the 2008 bust.

People also want more mobility. They want something that has good resale value as well. Condos just don’t provide the latter the way that a reasonably sized SFH would. Besides, condo associations are a pain in the ass—I know, I own a downtown condo. Regular emails, new rules about this or that, warnings about new policies and fines, I mean if I’m going to be treated like a renter than I might as well just be one!

I don’t blame Related for going with apartments here—ultimately it will be a more valuable asset.

small scale condo developments seem to be doing very well in the neighborhoods. bidding wars in my bucktown condo building are common as of late - but we have just 8 units. over the last 3 years all go under contract within 24 hours of hitting the MLS.

[pianowizard]

In the Vista Tower thread chris08876 recently posted this breathtaking photo of the Chicago skyline, and I am trying to visualize how 400 LSD would look from this angle. Considering that it's barely taller than One Bennett Park (837 ft), and is located right next to it, and also has similarly light colors, I think 400 LSD and OBP would appear to fuse into one big blob and thus won't be very noticeable. 1,100 ft with a darker color would have worked significantly better IMO.

Originally Posted by chris08876

An aerial view of frozen Lake Michigan by Daniel/Dan Eidsmoe, on Flickr