CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS - Page 8

Latoso · #**141** Posted **May 26, 2007, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

given the complexities of this site with the railroad .... i'd run with this proposal as fast as i could and wouldn't look back till the Mexican border.

Why the Mexican border? Given that this project would include building an underground railroad I would have gone with the Canadian border instead.

brian_b · #**142** Posted **May 26, 2007, 4:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

I hope they keep the boat house/dock. What are the issues with that?

If I remember correctly, the boat house/dock was something Natarus was always trying to get built at that spot. However, either the Coast Guard or the Army Core of Engineers recommended not building such a thing at that location due to boat traffic.

The boat dock is something I really want to happen, so I'll try not to get too disappointed when it gets axed.

Alliance · #**143** Posted **May 26, 2007, 3:10 PM**

meh...700 is decent. If the building is thin enough...that'd be ok.

SamInTheLoop · #**144** Posted **May 26, 2007, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Screw that. If they land a big tenant they should add 15-20 floors of condos. The market may be slowing, but they wouldn't have a whole lot to sell and the views would be amazing. It's also very close to public transportation. They could have one express elevator to a separate sky lobby for residents, and then local elevators for the condo and amenity floors. Or they could have the residential elevators on the exterior, where the curved faces of the building meet on the north and south corners of the building. Longest exterior elevator run anybody? If this one touches or goes over 800 feet it will be a home run. It's going to need a lot of height, IBM is almost 700, and Trump and WV both clear 1,000 easily. This building is so slick-looking it deserves to be a lot taller.

Not gonna happen - this just simply is not going to be an office/residential tower. (No one would like to be proved wrong on this count more than me, but the age of the office/residential mixed-use tower in Chicago is pretty much finished) And no - the city should not try anything as foolish as attempting to force developers to add residences to their planned office towers, or offices to their planned residential towers...

BVictor1 · #**145** Posted **May 26, 2007, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Not gonna happen - this just simply is not going to be an office/residential tower. (No one would like to be proved wrong on this count more than me, but the age of the office/residential mixed-use tower in Chicago is pretty much finished) And no - the city should not try anything as foolish as attempting to force developers to add residences to their planned office towers, or offices to their planned residential towers...

Not force,

but suggest and encourage.

DePaul Bunyan · #**146** Posted **May 27, 2007, 5:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Not force,

but suggest and encourage.

Of course. An awesome-looking 700-footer beats the hell out of nothing. It would be nice though. Maybe the Chicago Spire can drive up residential prices to the point where a mixed-use tower could be feasible. Is it because of 7 South Dearborn (which I thought was mixed use) failing to get off the ground that no one wants to do a mixed-use tower or is it just that no one has done one for a while? I just think that the forest of 40-50 story office towers is kind of boring. It would be very cool if someone bucked the trend and put up a mixed-use supertall somewhere in the loop with 60 floors of office space and another 50 of condos. Could you imagine living in a building where the "bad" views were 700 feet above the street?

Steely Dan · #**147** Posted **May 30, 2007, 3:56 PM**

does anyone from emporis know if this proposal has been added to the database? i can't seem to find it over there. a building ID # would be great if you have one. thanks in advance.

SamInTheLoop · #**148** Posted **May 31, 2007, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Not force,

but suggest and encourage.

But still, if it doesn't make sense for Hines (for all the reasons I've already mentioned that office + residential towers don't make nearly as much sense as they used to (if they ever really did!), suggestion and encouragement will prove to be a waste of time and effort. Perhaps the only thing that could make a difference is an offer of $, but I definitely believe the only reason the LaSalle St TIF should be tapped for this project is for the addition of a very valuable public amenity - ie the waterfront amenities that may be part of the development, and not to have Hines add 20 floors of luxury residences or something of that nature, so that we skyscraper nuts can be satisfied...

honte · #**149** Posted **May 31, 2007, 6:04 PM**

^ Perhaps the city should invent a "mixed-use" zoning that provides incentives (density bonuses) for developers if they mix uses on parcels. For key parcels, this could result in more dramatic towers and also help bring more residents into the Loop without limiting available land for offices.

Obviously, most of these projects are PUD anyway, so it would be more of a suggestion than anything, but it might help "set the tone."

GregBear24 · #**150** Posted **May 31, 2007, 8:02 PM**

^ That's a great idea, honte. Hope someone who knows people can suggest that to the powers that be. I'm surprised daley hasn't done something like what you've suggested already to really give a boost to the river front- as if it needs much of a boost in the first place.

ardecila · #**151** Posted **May 31, 2007, 8:47 PM**

What good are density bonuses when you're already building huge towers? Density bonuses allow for developers to enlarge projects in lower-scale neighborhoods in order to make a greater profit. In other words, if the developer is already building a 900' tower in order to fit both offices and residential, there's not much of an incentive to build higher due to sharply rising building costs at those heights - their profit margins will not increase by building taller, which takes away the appeal of density bonuses.

Alliance · #**152** Posted **Jun 1, 2007, 3:30 AM**

Whatever they do, it would be great to get some more 500-700 fters east of the River.

spyguy · #**153** Posted **Jun 3, 2007, 6:30 PM**

Hines now features this building on their website.

http://www.hines.com/property/detail.aspx?id=1946

munda · #**154** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 3:19 AM**

WOW
it looks so amazing

harryc · #**155** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 6:42 PM**

Wow - I always though that was an awfully nice place for a parking log.
I wonder what they are going to do for the cars, this is old rail-yard and their is still a (major) set of commuter tracks that will go between this and any road out.

Docks attached ? great idea - it always seems like a waste of river to have all these highrises, and only Marina towers have a mairna.

Hide the train tracks ? why ? --- hide the roads.

Chitown · #**156** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 7:02 PM**

Hide both.

BVictor1 · #**157** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chitown

Hide both.

I like the big choo-choo's though...

ardecila · #**158** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 10:37 PM**

It's too bad that this building basically guarantees a grade crossing at Canal for the forseeable future. It'd be great to remove all grade crossings in the Fulton district - they are just a liability given the tremendous traffic into and out of Union Station and the growing residential population in the Fulton district.

Chitown · #**159** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 12:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I like the big choo-choo's though...

Me too. It's the tracks I don't like. So ugly on Google Earth!

neverdone · #**160** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 3:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

This artist perspective is quite misleading.