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

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by jc5680

Crains has a few updated renderings, more renderings should be coming from the meeting, but the base looks like a potentially huge improvement.

These towers are gorgeous.

[southoftheloop]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

These towers are gorgeous.

Yeah. They're like waterfalls.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Love the design. I wish Reilly hadn't nixed the original proposal so that we could have gotten them taller.

My sentiments exactly. The previous base did need some improvement, but they should have allowed the hotel facet. These buildings look nice. They would look nicer a little taller.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by southoftheloop

Yeah. They're like waterfalls.

Excellent observation. Now I can't unsee them as waterfalls.

[Chicago Celtic]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

What are some reasonable arguments to make at this meeting encouraging taller buildings besides the buildings having a nicer impact on the skyline or that this site "deserves" something taller?

The financial contribution (property tax) of a $50 million tower compared to a $500 million tower is quite different. You could argue that in a state with looming pension obligations, we would be wasting an opportunity to contribute more to the state via property tax if a smaller tower is built. Of course there is the added sales tax expenditures of the buildings residents/visitors, and the support of nearby businesses to which these residents/visitors patronize. The larger building would have more residents/visitors (in theory), and thus more of an impact on sales tax generation and local business support.

We would be wasting an opportunity on a site that can support higher densities given it's location in the CBD, should we go with a smaller tower.

[the urban politician]

So did anybody attend this meeting? As usual, our local media provided only limited info...

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Chicago Celtic

The financial contribution (property tax) of a $50 million tower compared to a $500 million tower is quite different. You could argue that in a state with looming pension obligations, we would be wasting an opportunity to contribute more to the state via property tax if a smaller tower is built. Of course there is the added sales tax expenditures of the buildings residents/visitors, and the support of nearby businesses to which these residents/visitors patronize. The larger building would have more residents/visitors (in theory), and thus more of an impact on sales tax generation and local business support.

We would be wasting an opportunity on a site that can support higher densities given it's location in the CBD, should we go with a smaller tower.

I think that's a fairly reasonable argument.

[Skyguy_7]

^ Reasonable if it were the city building a private development, which could be one way to earn some money (without the thievery of more taxation) and get us out of the pension hole!

In reality, as I'm sure you understand, this is a private developer who could care less how much tax money they can generate, when they're the ones taking all the initial risk.


Rgarri, please wake up and post some details! Did the design team indicate a potential start date?

These towers are beautiful. They have good presence at our lakefront and would be a welcome addition in any city.

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^ Reasonable if it were the city building a private development, which could be one way to earn some money (without the thievery of more taxation) and get us out of the pension hole!

In reality, as I'm sure you understand, this is a private developer who could care less how much tax money they can generate, when they're the ones taking all the initial risk.


Rgarri, please wake up and post some details! Did the design team indicate a potential start date?

These towers are beautiful. They have good presence at our lakefront and would be a welcome addition in any city.

I was at the meeting. They said they plan on starting construction on the first tower towards the end of this year!

They made it sound like the design details hadn't changed but you can tell they greatly reduced the terracotta. As mentioned it's taken out of the spandrals and is now only in thin strips up the building. It looks like the decorative light up crowns have been nixed as well which is odd.

[Skyguy_7]

^Awesome. Thanks for the intel.

I hope they reconsider the lighting. These could look stunning at night with lighting on the terracotta at each setback.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I think that's a fairly reasonable argument.

I once made a similar argument at a community meeting regarding turning an old West Town police station building and lot into a new city park. I said selling off excess city land for real estate development would bring in needed funds for the city and state. My comment was met with blank stares.

[2PRUROCKS!]

What was the general public sentiment like at the meeting? Where there complaints about the lack of height or more explanation about that? Now with the podium gone how do they plan on screening off LSD? What are the connections to Du Sable Park and Ogden Slip like and the overall ground level circulation? How are the supposed security concerns being addressed?

[pilsenarch]

I read in the Trib about the addition of a wall to LSD to buffer the noise... that sounds a little disturbing to me... it will block views of the river and would be much worse than an active podium base...

[Busy Bee]

My god it just gets worse and worse

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^ Reasonable if it were the city building a private development, which could be one way to earn some money (without the thievery of more taxation) and get us out of the pension hole!

In reality, as I'm sure you understand, this is a private developer who could care less how much tax money they can generate, when they're the ones taking all the initial risk.


Rgarri, please wake up and post some details! Did the design team indicate a potential start date?

These towers are beautiful. They have good presence at our lakefront and would be a welcome addition in any city.

I get what you're saying. Neither the developer nor the neighbors to this building care about more tax generation, and the alderman basically is only trying to please his voter base. Overall it's a good argument for the city, but if the participants of the meeting don't care then I guess it's moot.

[rgarri4]

It was pretty well received. Kurt Bailey went over a list of items the community didn't like about the last one, and one by one went over how the new proposal acknowledged those concerns.

There were complaints about he height chop and it's iconic location. They explained it's because they completely removed the hotel component. They also made a huge effort to reduce traffic to the area thus giving them a rough unit count to stick to. In fact, even after demonstrating their effort in reducing traffic, people were still concerned. They wanted the overall massing and look and feel of the building to remain the same as the last version. So no stacking one tower on top of the other. They know it's an iconic site and believe the architecture will live up to the location. They believed that their previous proposal wouldn't have gotten built. Anything taller wouldn't have gotten built. They're ready to build something already rather than making yet another proposal that would fail and them loosing the location.

They plan on putting a huge perf. metal screen on the sides of LSD screening it from the rest of the site. It looked sorta vague in the renderings. You access the park through a tunnel to the south of the site close to the river walk.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I read in the Trib about the addition of a wall to LSD to buffer the noise... that sounds a little disturbing to me... it will block views of the river and would be much worse than an active podium base...

the podium of the original design would have blocked those views too, so no big deal.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

It was pretty well received. Kurt Bailey went over a list of items the community didn't like about the last one, and one by one went over how the new proposal acknowledged those concerns.

There were complaints about he height chop and it's iconic location. They explained it's because they completely removed the hotel component. They also made a huge effort to reduce traffic to the area thus giving them a rough unit count to stick to. In fact, even after demonstrating their effort in reducing traffic, people were still concerned. They wanted the overall massing and look and feel of the building to remain the same as the last version. So no stacking one tower on top of the other. They know it's an iconic site and believe the architecture will live up to the location. They believed that their previous proposal wouldn't have gotten built. Anything taller wouldn't have gotten built. They're ready to build something already rather than making yet another proposal that would fail and them loosing the location.

They plan on putting a huge perf. metal screen on the sides of LSD screening it from the rest of the site. It looked sorta vague in the renderings. You access the park through a tunnel to the south of the site close to the river walk.

Thanks for the update, rgarri. I suppose it is good news that the community members were also upset about the height chop. And now they want a screen to block the noise of LSD. That's why an amenity podium would have been fine for that specific spot, as it would have blocked the noise of LSD! Hopefully they learn this lesson, because there will be more proposals in this neighborhood. Next up is the Tribune Tower addition and then the two lots flanking the NBC Tower. Those all can and should have good height.

[2PRUROCKS!]

Does this LSD wall screen cover the underside of LSD only or extend above the upper road deck? I am mainly concerned about screening the underside from the pedestrian level. Cars on LSD should still be able to view the river and city scape so I am concerned about a screen that would block their views. LSD is one of the most spectacular urban roadways in the world because of the views it affords.

[rgarri4]

The screen went from top to bottom with only a pedestrian tunnel off to the side. I cant recall if it went above upper LSD.



They had other renderings. They said the presentation deck should be on The Alderman website this morning.