CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS

[Bombardier]

^And Essex a block in the other direction... both completed within a few months of one another... SMH

[Steely Dan]

That's some "level 11" NIMBY dip-shittery right there.

Just when you think they can't possibly ratchet up the stupid any higher.....

[SteelMonkey]

Originally Posted by glowrock

The residents and adjoining property owners along Michigan Ave. need to non-politely go fuck themselves. This has got to be the most insipidly ridiculous logic I've ever read!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Exactly

[gebs]

I'm giving them a huge benefit of the doubt when I say that, in this case, I think they're using the word "transients" to refer to people who live in the building for one year and then bounce somewhere else, and not nomads or the dispossessed.

Still, I agree with everyone that their logic is hugely flawed.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by left of center

Give me a break with these fatalistic/doomsday whines.

I don't this this has as much to do with fatalism or doomsday-cultism as much as good ol' fashioned "for many of us, this will block our view." Many units have a south-east facing view that this will obviously impede. You can get why they'd be sad about that, but there's a difference between being sad and being indignant.
Personally, I find the tower boring as hell (enough of a widening towards the top to be mildly noticeable but too subtle to make an architectural statement). Not that the neighbors care...

[SamInTheLoop]

^ For the "this will block our view" theory to make sense it means that this must have slipped under the radar of the 910 condo board when the tower was originally up for entitlements as it has essentially the same envelope/massing as the approved PD version. (or they did press the issue and it was either not reported on or I just missed it.......or I suppose it's a much different board or residents weirdly had some sort of recent change of heart).

I haven't read the article but if their gripes are mostly about it changing to all rental, that should be a non-starter in terms of the Alderman entertaining them. That's just ridiculous and doesn't deserve a serious response. I don't know what they mean by a transient population, but to be clear the probability of a substantial number of very short-term rentals is probably greater with having a tower of 500+ individually-owned units - you would have a high percentage of investor-owned units rented out according to whatever/whenever length of lease individual owners decide, possibly with many being used as vacation rentals (I realize there would be board with some rules but might end up being very investor owner friendly) - particularly with that larger number of quite small units that were added by the developer while still a condo project, but with the 'standard' units to some extent certainly as well.

With an all rental tower comes professional, institutional management. This is an expensive, high end project and would be not just at the top of the market in the South Loop but would be in the top tier among all Class A buildings downtown. The developer would very likely hire one of the larger very established apartment leasing and management firms to run it - or they would sell to a (likely) institutional or REIT owner that would do the same (either in-house or also third party).

If the gripes are about just overall density of the project, that should clearly be a non-starter of an argument at this location. This is a walk and transit to everything type of location and is obviously supportive of very high density. I wonder what Ald King does here. Her ward just picks up this portion of downtown but primarily covers completely different neighborhoods (granted it's in relative terms a very fast growing section of her ward/gaining market share in terms of constituents represented). She might not be too terribly concerned by the complaints as to move to pander to the NIMBYs here, particularly if she's presented with arguments that this change/densification of the project is necessary to keep it alive given changing market conditions (the developer's previous programmatic/pricing misfire).


On the other hand, perhaps this is the classic kabuki theater between developer and alderman. They could have a unit count in mind, say 625-675, that still might pencil out well for them and that the alderman can get behind amending to once any tussle with the 910 board plays out, and a choreographed compromise is reached.

What would be really sad would be a situation in which the developer didn't make any such approach, they took a chance on this solid boost in density here representing what will truly pencil out for them with not a ton of room for error, and King ends up being persuaded by the NIMBY board on this one and rebuffs the amendment. If that were to happen - following the poor judgement/lack of homework with their initial program......they should probably consider an altogether different line of work.

Would be very curious as to how Mr Downtown sees this one and thinks it's likely to play out and what Ald King is likely to do.

[Barrelfish]

The NIMBYism here is obviously stupid. But it will be a moot point if this project can't secure new financing.

[Mr Downtown]

https://cityobservatory.org/wp-conte...redict_now.jpg

I recently had a lengthy conversation with Ald. King on this, but I didn’t end with a good sense of what she intends to do.

I was quite surprised at how little resistance the 910 building put up back in 2016, but I think their board at the time had been focused on lot-line issues, and once the design pulled back 10 feet from the lot line, they acquiesced. But board leadership, and even residents, change over time. I only heard concerns expressed in the Feb. 22 meeting. A lot of it is Boomers who just can’t comprehend why respectable people would ever rent rather than buy condos; some is Boomers who frequently drive on various errands and therefore just assume more units will mean proportionally more trip generation. They also often feel streets are already saturated, a point of view that puzzles me since it’s pretty rare for me to even have to wait 10 seconds before crossing most South Loop streets.

Ald. King didn’t seem all that receptive to the “but they’re rental units” argument; in fact, her main issue is affordable housing (which the new proposal includes 23 units of). But she’s more receptive to the drive-everywhere crowd and had already made them put more parking stalls in this revised PD. The big question for me is whether the mayor’s office and Commissioner Cox will pressure her to harvest the golden eggs (those affordable units, millions for the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund; more millions in property tax, etc.) right away, or let the site wait a few years for a better design and a more realistic pro forma.

[BVictor1]

Join us for a 1000M Public Meeting

Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 5 PM CST.

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...Qt-zUrG-LpY6fw

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Join us for a 1000M Public Meeting

Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 5 PM CST.

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...Qt-zUrG-LpY6fw

Let me guess, they shortened it and cut down the units in order to limit the number of filthy vagrant renters bothering the honest, hard-working residents of 910 S. Michigan Avenue...

[BuildThemTaller]

Hey, look at that! A post on a dormant thread with an actual update instead of a "is there any update on this one?" post! Thanks, BVictor1.

[AMWChicago]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Hey, look at that! A post on a dormant thread with an actual update instead of a "is there any update on this one?" post! Thanks, BVictor1.

Facts lol Excited for Wednesday!

[F1 Tommy]

Good news that they are still moving ahead. The gap between NEMA and Essex look strange from the tower at ORD.

[BruceP]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Let me guess, they shortened it and cut down the units in order to limit the number of filthy vagrant renters bothering the honest, hard-working residents of 910 S. Michigan Avenue...

Let's hope they canned Jahn and put the last nail in the coffin of that abortion. His proposal is one of the most inelegant buildings I've seen in decades.

[left of center]

^ If we are looking at a total redesign of the tower (either by Jahn or someone else), I wouldn't be entirely upset. It looks nice enough, but something about the proportions always kind of threw me off.

In any case, as long as it retains its height and density I will be a happy camper.

*fingers crossed*

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Let me guess, they shortened it and cut down the units in order to limit the number of filthy vagrant renters bothering the honest, hard-working residents of 910 S. Michigan Avenue...

I'm expecting a 500 foot box, that way I either won't be that disappointed or will be pleasantly surprised.

[donnie]

Yeah my guess is 600 footer like Essex but think 750 will be sufficient.....

[chicubs111]

^ So guess were assuming another height cut from the small reduction they release few months back?...I guess the fact there having another meeting can mean they changed the design or height of the building im guessing?

[Razorback]

Apologies for my ignorance here, but does this article confirm this project will be good to go with the height reduction and increased living units?

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...ue-skyscraper/

[chicubs111]

^ I think people were afraid of an additional height cut from the already minor reduction to 805"