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

[left of center]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Lakefront Protection Ordinance

Interesting, I didn't think that the LPO applied to anything west of LSD

[LMich]

Originally Posted by left of center

Why will there be a zoning change required for that parcel? Isn't it already zoned for 2,000 ft? Must be a density issue, as I imagine the two tower plan probably has more units than the Calatrava proposal. (even though Related's two towers add up to less than 2,000 ft)

Did a little more research and I think I figured out why. This is zoned Planned Development (PD); any major change is considered an amendment. An amendment is treated for all intents and purposes as a rezoning.

As far as I can tell, this made it through the initial review by the Planning and Development Department, and public hearings and recommedations by the Chicago Plan Commission (which included the Lakefront Protection Ordinance review) and the City Council Committee on Zoning. It sounds like it hit the wall upon making it to the full council; what I'm unsure of is whether this even got a vote and was rejected, or has been tabled. It sounds like in any case it'd have to start the process all over again if any major changes are made.

[Mr Downtown]

^Um, no.

The site is part of a PD (Cityfront Center) approved back in the 1980s, which set out very general aspects of how the area would be developed. Each time a building within that PD is actually designed and ready for construction, an amendment to the PD brings in the detailed site plan, loading dock details, green roof promise, FAR calculation, and number of dwelling units for that building.

The PD amendment will proceed through Plan Commission and then City Council just like a new PD. This being Chicago, all that will just be very quick rubber-stamping once the alderman of the ward supports it. Theoretically, DPD staff could bring the amendment to Plan Commission and another ward's alderman could introduce the PD amendment in council, but under longstanding tradition, that simply doesn't happen.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The PD amendment will proceed through Plan Commission and then City Council just like a new PD.

So, this was the important part, and the part which I described correctly. Not sure why you felt the need to be rude. If I was confused about where this was in the process it's because it was seemingly implied with the introduction Reilly that this had already made it through the process (Plan Commission and planning council committee) to get to the city council.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by LMich

Not sure why you felt the need to be rude.

That sort of response/tone is actually quite normal for him (perhaps even a bit restrained, lol). I have mostly become pretty good at just rolling my eyes and moving on...

[harryc]

Oct 29

Staging equipment for work on the bikeway fly-over ( other side of LSD)

[Skyguy_7]

^Awesome. Definitely not Sprie-site-related, but that is one of the biggest mobile cranes in Chicago. It will be a sight to behold once fully erect. Giggity. Good to see bike path work progressing.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by LMich

Not sure why you felt the need to be rude.

I can't see what I said that was "rude."

Here's the part that you have incorrect:

Originally Posted by LMich

As far as I can tell, this made it through the initial review by the Planning and Development Department, and public hearings and recommedations by the Chicago Plan Commission (which included the Lakefront Protection Ordinance review) and the City Council Committee on Zoning. It sounds like it hit the wall upon making it to the full council; what I'm unsure of is whether this even got a vote and was rejected, or has been tabled. It sounds like in any case it'd have to start the process all over again if any major changes are made.

Assuming you mean the current proposal for two towers at this location, that has not yet gone to Plan Commission, much less to City Council. The developers showed a proposal to the local alderman, who recently announced that he would not sponsor an amendment to the PD to allow these buildings.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I can't see what I said that was "rude."...

^Um, no.

This came across as rude and dismissive.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by toddguy

This came across as rude and dismissive.

LOL really? I had another forumer say I was being rude for throwing 3 laughing smiles in my response.

[left of center]

Emotion is tough to transmit electronically (whether message board, texting, chatting app, social media, blah blah etc). Its hard to tell if someone is making a joke or being rude or sarcastic based on a response without some kind of indicator (like an emoji, or adding a '/s' or something to that effect). it's pretty easy for people to misinterpret each other.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I take it we still haven't figured out why there's a massive crane and several trucks at the site...

It couldn't have anything to do with the project considering it's not even approved yet, but still nice to see I guess?

Bikeway - Flyover

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=43349

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

LOL really? I had another forumer say I was being rude for throwing 3 laughing smiles in my response.

The particular way that was said? The "um..no" just comes across wrong-it could have been said better. Maybe it was not intended to come across that way, but that particulary phrasing and wording does come across as dismissive regardless of the intention. In other words, he could have said it in a better way.

*I find that most posts are not like that and even if they are in disagreement they are not rude or dismissive. Unless a thread has disolved into arguement and people get personal. And again, I was not saying that was the intention in the post in question.

More on topic, I really really want to see something great at this site and as tall as possible given how crushing the loss of the Spire was to me. This site deserves the very best.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

We haven't seen the revision for the spire site yet though. The recently rejected proposal wasn't that terrible/short although could be taller.

Yeah, I'm still hoping they decide to change the massing on the Spire site. It's very awkward in the renderings. Maybe it'll look more natural in real life, but if anything good can come from the hotel being chopped out, a re-massing would make a height cut on one of the towers an easier pill to swallow

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

If they cut the height of one of the towers they should just combine them into one taller tower. The article even said that height was not a problem in their plan, the podium size was.

I personally would love a 1,300+ foot version of what we've seen.

If they have to be shorter maybe two 900+ foot identical twins could be cool.

Yeah one big one would be ideal in my book. But 900 footers might frame the gateway better with Site I coming across the river soon. Hmmmmm, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Related decides to do with it

[Northwest]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

If they cut the height of one of the towers they should just combine them into one taller tower. The article even said that height was not a problem in their plan, the podium size was.

I personally would love a 1,300+ foot version of what we've seen.

If they have to be shorter maybe two 900+ foot identical twins could be cool.

Its correct to call bullshit on the podium, didn't they already get a site prepared to go down 7 floors, over nearly the entire acreage, with a massive slurry and secant wall, completely finished? Absolutely NO NEED for a podium here. Demand better designs, and this is ALREADY SET UP to be podium-less just like the original was to be.

[chicagodeckerdude]

So whats the reality here? What kinda time frame we lookin at?

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by chicagodeckerdude

So whats the reality here? What kinda time frame we lookin at?

There is no real timeframe until they acquire the Alderman's blessing... :/

[AMWChicago]

Is this a good omen that construction will begin in this cycle, or something that could force a lame design or doom this Related??

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...e-replacement/

[Kenmore]

no way anything goes this cycle