HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #16481  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 2:41 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post

From 2006 to 2012, so much rose. That must of been like the peak years for the boom. Hopefully the city sees another great boom like that.

Nope. At least according to data, here's the numbers of completed high rises per year:

2006: 5
2007: 7
2008: 21
2009: 18
2010: 14
2011: 0
2012: 9
2013: 7
2014: 7
2015: 8
2016: 16
2017: 19
2018: 18
2019: 11

2006 - 2012: 74
2013 - 2019: 86

Nope - 2013 to 2019 actually had more high rises and skyscrapers produced than 2006 to 2012.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16482  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 4:06 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
ψ Sailor of the Mind ψ
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 40,171
Ah, good to know. Thanks.

Seems relatively consistent or somewhat close in 3 year spurts. What height range are we using on a side note for the figures? Over 300 ft?

I'm always curious when it comes to high rises on what cities produce using 12 floors at a minimum or about 120 ft upwards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16483  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 4:13 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,159
If The 78 (ugh) ever gets built out like they're proposing, that angle will look like almost like a new city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16484  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 6:33 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 6,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWillChicago View Post
Have we figured out if 717 S. Clark is getting those awkward tiny balconies on the top floors yet?
Not sure it's been referenced here, but there appears to be a current rendering on their Website - https://imprintapts.com/



. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16485  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 8:12 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,853
Not sure if it was discussed here earlier, but it seems the Lagrange project at 40 Oak got a haircut from 502 to 467 feet. Condo units reduced from 90 to 75, but parking still at 150.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16486  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 8:17 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,221
^ Damn...always a reduction in height!..almost everytime ..does 30 ft reduction really satisfy some people who complain about nonsensical things?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16487  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 8:27 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,654
I'd be happy if the Lagrange project gets cut by another 467 ft, really not feeling this one
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16488  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 8:54 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
^ Damn...always a reduction in height!..almost everytime ..does 30 ft reduction really satisfy some people who complain about nonsensical things?
if there was only one unit per floor they wouldn't care about the height - because if there is one thing old white people hate, it's density. so any reduction in unit number and increase in unit size is a victory.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16489  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 8:58 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,853
Maybe the developer will pivot to micro rentals and build 164 units as-of-right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16490  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 11:31 PM
KWillChicago's Avatar
KWillChicago KWillChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,043
Thanks Tom^^^^^^. The last one I saw was the one with all those little tiny one room balconies on the top ten floors or so. Looked really awkward.
https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/717-s-clark-street
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16491  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 5:06 PM
jc5680's Avatar
jc5680 jc5680 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,367
Paddy OFegans looks like they have closed (800 w lake hotel proposal). I don't recall if their zoning change has gone through yet, but we might see demo here soon. I believe they wanted construction to start late spring.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16492  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 5:10 PM
bgsrand bgsrand is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc5680 View Post
Paddy OFegans looks like they have closed (800 w lake hotel proposal). I don't recall if their zoning change has gone through yet, but we might see demo here soon. I believe they wanted construction to start late spring.

Didnt they just complete a vertical expansion last year?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16493  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 5:18 PM
skysoar skysoar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
if there was only one unit per floor they wouldn't care about the height - because if there is one thing old white people hate, it's density. so any reduction in unit number and increase in unit size is a victory.
I have never understood the rationale for continuous height reductions of high-rise proposals in the urban core of Chicago either. Can someone please explain, or give theory to why it happens too often.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16494  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 7:03 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,075
Lower height equals fewer units and less density. First, this is less downward pressure on prices of existing units. So it’s protectionism.
Then there are the complaints about traffic, crowds, parking, crime, views, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16495  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 7:58 PM
Cheap_Shot Cheap_Shot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgsrand View Post
Didnt they just complete a vertical expansion last year?
They started the "rooftop" a couple years back but never finished it. Perhaps the owner had a heads up this new building was likely to start sooner rather than later and didn't want to continue to spend money to finish the addition that would only be used for a few months out of the year anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16496  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 8:57 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
Lower height equals fewer units and less density. First, this is less downward pressure on prices of existing units. So it’s protectionism.
Then there are the complaints about traffic, crowds, parking, crime, views, etc.
Not necessarily lower height equals lower density...we have plenty of shorter squat buildings that could have the same density as a taller thinner building..but it seems that the shorter squat pass through easier...for some reason the height scares people
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16497  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 8:59 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 874
I think in most cases, the developers always start with added floors/units above what they ideally want to build as a negotiating ploy regardless of any zoning changes or community approvals...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16498  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 9:15 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,980
50 E Randolph

__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16499  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 10:31 PM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,491
50 E Randolph

January 16, 2020





January 17, 2020





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16500  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2020, 10:34 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
I'd be happy if the Lagrange project gets cut by another 467 ft, really not feeling this one

Precisely. I'm hoping for additional massive height reductions to this one if we can't be rewarded with an outright shelving of this abomination.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:18 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.