CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There's no point talking sense to SamintheLoop. The whole world, including billions of dollars of institutional money, is all in on Fulton Market as an office offshoot of the Loop. He's just mad that it's not happening in the South Loop as he has long wanted (and I'm assuming he has some sort of vested financial interest in).

Again - nope. I’m arguing on urban planning principles alone. I do not believe in arguing with any type of hidden agenda. Radical, right? I have absolutely no business or personal financial interests in the South Loop. And again - I’m hopeful (perhaps naively so) this is clear enough: I hold zero business or personal financial interest in any Fulton Market-competing area or Fulton Market itself.

It’s a simple, straightforward, sound, well-founded, logical argument: the city should be actively discouraging heavy concentrations of office in areas that are not within the transit core, and encouraging them within.

You also literally proved my point re your awkward attempts at discrediting my argument: you cite private market forces including capital flows. That has nothing to do re my argument, which once again is all about adhering to smart planning principles.

[k1052]

I don't think "sound planning principles" necessarily dictate banning dense office use unless it's literally on top of the entire CTA rail network. Fulton is a desirable growing office node that's well served by existing transit, simple as that. The loop will always be an office market but now that it shares some room with other uses (hospitality and residential) its becoming much less dead outside 9-5...which is good IMO.

[SIGSEGV]

145 S Wells looks complete

[SIGSEGV]

717 S Clark

[SIGSEGV]

Alta Grand Central

[harryc]

Aug 30




Sept 3




Sept 4

[harryc]

Aug 30

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I haven't yet heard Ald. Hopkins's rationale, but I've usually found Ald. Reilly's reasons pretty convincing. Base zoning here is an FAR of 7, and several bonuses easily kick you up to 10 or 11, meaning you can pretty easily do a 25-30 story building with very efficient dimensions on a site this large. Stay under 30 stories and 350 units and you never even have to go see the alderman.

Now if Hopkins is just pandering to the folks in 1133 N. Dearborn whose views might be blocked, or Gold Coasters thinking these new folks will take their onstreet parking—then let him have it with both barrels.



I'm pretty happy with the triggers, and I think they're a good compromise between negotiated planning and unfettered free-market development. I definitely want DPD doing a careful look at the urban design, streetscape, and traffic/delivery aspects of all big developments.

I'd personally be surprised if Hopkins wasn't pandering to view and parking spot-motivated constituents in this case.....but we shall see what the compromise looks like.

I get what you're saying on the PD triggers (that it offers a chance at review). To me they are just too low for the core though - and I think they are so by design so as to give aldermen more leverage, in fine Chicago prerogative tradition. But clearly what Chicago should have by ordinance is a formal design review - by urban planning/design professionals in the Planning Department....not the current situation where it's effectively forced only by politicians (yes, I know you can argue the developer has the right to build something smaller in these cases that conforms to existing zoning - however, again I hold these PD triggers are somewhat too low for the core, likely for the express purpose of giving aldermen more sway.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Somehow NYC manages to survive with people changing trains. The setup of the CTA network actually isn't as bad for Fulton Market as you imagine it to be, there's a solid connection to every rail line except Red. If CTA ever invested in better downtown connections, it would benefit not just Fulton Market but also The 78 (assuming Related opens a new subway stop there).

Other peripheral development areas like the Tribune site, Lincoln Yards, and Michael Reese site really are in the rail transit boonies and will require major new expansions to be transit-accessible, but Fulton Market is fine.

I definitely agree that Fulton Market is much better positioned than those megadevelopment projects (or potential projects) such as Tribune, LY, 78, Reese et al.

But Fulton Market is definitely not as convenient, transit-wise as the Loop. No train changes are notably superior than 1 train change (solid connection or otherwise). Additionally, it's obviously not as easy getting on the CTA from Metra.

Again, I think that this is where public policy comes into play, in the form of effective city planning using multiple tools - to actively direct the city's dense, large scale office development to the area that is most easily accessible to the broadest segment of the city's - and region's - population. It's just common sense, and the right policy from economic, social and environmental perspectives.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Nope. A couple misconceptions. It's not just about Union Station and Ogilvie. You have to also obviously factor in the core CTA routes. And then, you split the difference. This makes your focal point around the Wells Street corridor (perhaps LaSalle?, but I'll just say Wells). So, as the crow flies, this makes the very eastern edge of Fulton Market (Halsted), equidistant to this transit nexus as roughly the park at Lakeshore East. There's a reason office never gained traction at Lakeshore East (although admittedly there was the BCBS building expansion that it's only fair to note) - and that is because it's a bit too far from removed from (roughly) Wells St. Same goes for Fulton Market, despite one CTA line that spurs off the Loop with two stations just to the South of Fulton. Conversely, there's a reason, the Wacker-Franklin stretch became the most signifiacantly dense concentration of modern office in Chicago over the last 15-20 years - because it is super proximate to this transit nexus.

But, that's just as the crow flies. In terms of perceived (psychological factors - which happen to be important to humans) distance, it's even further to Fulton Market, and not a pleasant walking experience. This is because you have to go over the barren expanse of a massive expressway, and some area on either side that is just not really pedestrian inviting. So, it's even further factoring this important perception in....what would be the adjusted equivalent? LSD maybe? For some people, the expressway overpass walk may be so unpleasant, the adjusted equivalent might even be Lake Michigan.

But again, even without the psychological factor, the easternmost edge of Fulton is as far from Wells as Columbus (the very easternmost large-scale office downtown)

I did forget about the Metra Electric and Rock Island District lines (LaSalle St and Millennium stations), which may pull the 'transit center of gravity', if you will, just very slightly further east, actually.

[BonoboZill4]

Absolutely love that last west loop canyon shot there, Harry. That'll need to be documented for the next 10 years... could get a little crazy soon

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Again, I think that this is where public policy comes into play, in the form of effective city planning using multiple tools - to actively direct the city's dense, large scale office development to the area that is most easily accessible to the broadest segment of the city's - and region's - population. It's just common sense, and the right policy from economic, social and environmental perspectives.

But that's exactly what's been happening. The largest planned office building in the west loop is 21 stories, 300 ft. East of the Kennedy are the new large scale office towers - 400 to 800ft. If it was the inverse you'd have a case to complain.

As I see it the issue is this: The Chicago Loop is very mature CBD. Once Wolf Point South is built, 130 Franklin and a few parking garages are about all that's left. (Madison and Des Plaines doesn't fit your criteria either). So if no office should be built in the west loop and the Loop is full, what are you suggesting? No more new office space? Or we start knocking down historic buildings?

I see what is happening in the west loop as necessary for downtown Chicago's growth, it's smart growth. And once the west loop is mostly filled in, pressure will again grow for more large towers east of the Kennedy.

To have 800 ft building packed shoulder to shoulder and then nothing but 3 story warehouses just a few blocks away isn't how cities work.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ There is much, much more room for development east of the expressway than you seem to think. Much more. A lot of folks get that wrong, thinking there's only a handful of development spots left. They always do, every cycle. While it's of course true that there are less sites now than there were last cycle, and less sites then than the cycle before (and next cycle there will be fewer than today), there is still much more room for redevelopment than you think. This is also actually also the case with cities that have more mature, more fully built-out CBDs than Chicago does. Manhattan is a fantastic example, among others.

I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm saying that the Fulton Market office buildings under development are as large as the typical new Loop tower. They're clearly not, nor would you expect them to be. However, in aggregate, they still qualify as a concentration of significant office development in an off-prime, poorly planned location with respect to transit access.

It would be a different story if the Loop (loosely-defined let's just say east of the expressway - to the contrary, I think Madison/Des Plaines is a decent office site for sure....not as good as a few blocks to the east, but still decent enough) were as supply-constrained in reality as you imagine it to be. It's just not, however.

Smart growth would be where a city directs office development to efficiently use current transit infrastructure (in any event, but particularly in an era in which significant new transit investments are very challening and time-consuming to pull off), not to direct a whole bunch into a less well-served/accessible area, and say let's build it out over here, let it play out/the market work itself out/transit play catch-up or whatever, and then even larger towers will need to be built in the Loop at some point later on, where there actually is sufficient transit infrastructure (or, the best we have, anyway) today. That's the opposite of smart.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ There is much, much more room for development east of the expressway than you seem to think. Much more. A lot of folks get that wrong, thinking there's only a handful of development spots left. They always do, every cycle. While it's of course true that there are less sites now than there were last cycle, and less sites then than the cycle before (and next cycle there will be fewer than today), there is still much more room for redevelopment than you think. This is also actually also the case with cities that have more mature, more fully built-out CBDs than Chicago does. Manhattan is a fantastic example, among others.

I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm saying that the Fulton Market office buildings under development are as large as the typical new Loop tower. They're clearly not, nor would you expect them to be. However, in aggregate, they still qualify as a concentration of significant office development in an off-prime, poorly planned location with respect to transit access.

It would be a different story if the Loop (loosely-defined let's just say east of the expressway - to the contrary, I think Madison/Des Plaines is a decent office site for sure....not as good as a few blocks to the east, but still decent enough) were as supply-constrained in reality as you imagine it to be. It's just not, however.

Smart growth would be where a city directs office development to efficiently use current transit infrastructure (in any event, but particularly in an era in which significant new transit investments are very challening and time-consuming to pull off), not to direct a whole bunch into a less well-served/accessible area, and say let's build it out over here, let it play out/the market work itself out/transit play catch-up or whatever, and then even larger towers will need to be built in the Loop at some point later on, where there actually is sufficient transit infrastructure (or, the best we have, anyway) today. That's the opposite of smart.

I mean, you've driven home this point over and over again, but at some juncture you just have to give it up.

The cat's out of the bag in Fulton Market. Companies are there, more are coming, more towers are getting built, and it's still pretty damn good with transportation access although all is understood that it's not as perfect as the Central Loop.

The money has spoken. Anybody who doesn't like it at this point is just whining.

[PittsburghPA]

167 N Green 9/10



Gr333n 9/10. The texture and kinetic wall looks great

[PittsburghPA]

800 W Fulton Construction Schedule Update:

"-The week of the 9th of September they will finish their grading and surveying.
-The week of the 16th of September they will start their perimeter sheeting that will last 2 weeks. They will also be working until 7 to 8PM during this time as permitted by City Permit.
-The week of the 30th of September they will start their caisson drilling work that will last 2 weeks.
-The week of the 14th of October they will start their bracing and excavation work that will last for 4 weeks or until November 22nd."

I feel that is an aggressive timeline for caisson drilling.

[Barrelfish]

Got lucky with a great flight path on the way into Midway. (If anyone can tell me how to make these less gigantic when posting from imgur, I'd appreciate it)


(full size)



(full size)

[SIGSEGV]

^ imgur secretly creates thumbnails you can access by appending letters to the identifyier. Generally you'll want to use the largest thumbnail (h).

So for example, in your case you can do

[url=https://i.imgur.com/ITtXjTd.jpg][img]https://i.imgur.com/ITtXjTdh.jpg[/img][/url]

which produces a reasonably-sized image that can be clicked on to make it bigger.

[jtown,man]

Those pictures actually work out being so large lol

[LouisVanDerWright]

All I have to say about those pictures is: goddamn the Sears is such a beast. The entire skyline is East of it and it still outweighs everything else.