CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Just directionally, this doesn't feel right. Though parking is of course available in the heart of the CBD, driving clearly isn't intended to be the preferred means of transportation. But in this case, what is the developer's intent? .... is it to market this location as an alternative where employees can easily drive to work...? I imagine there is a market for that sort of thing, but besides the congestion question, it feels at odds with the intent of a CBD to have large auto-oriented offices on the fringes.

I think it goes a bit far to say Sterling Bay is trying to create an "auto-oriented" office district just because they include parking. Parking will be a part of any office district in Chicago. The Loop has many huge garages as well as parking within its buildings.

But the question is if we can get that parking ratio lowered. That kind of pushback needs to come from the city, because obviously the community is usually too stupid about these issues to have any meaningful insight.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

God this guy is fucking stupid. . .

Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

^ This proposal is about 1,000 units less than what the original LSE plan had in mind, and significantly more green space. I've given up on Reilly ever approving anything dense

None of his concerns appear related to the density, though

[maru2501]

I don't think IJKL was really imminent correct? maybe they can improve the pedestrian aspect or build what they can build as of right

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.

Is setting the buildings farther apart and creating underused park space really improving the pedestrian experience, though?

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think it goes a bit far to say Sterling Bay is trying to create an "auto-oriented" office district just because they include parking. Parking will be a part of any office district in Chicago. The Loop has many huge garages as well as parking within its buildings.

But the question is if we can get that parking ratio lowered. That kind of pushback needs to come from the city, because obviously the community is usually too stupid about these issues to have any meaningful insight.

Some parking availability is fine. I specifically mentioned parking is available in the CBD today. But at first glance, the scale appears to me to be an effort to create something that emphasizes driving more than we would normally see around the CBD. And I don't think it makes sense to simply say 'public transit isn't optimal in the area or the streets are not very walkable,' because the developer is obviously pursuing this with an understanding of the area. I think it makes sense to ask what exactly is the developer's intent.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.

It does seem that most of his stated objections were related to either walkability or security - I think security is a valid concern for the areas mentioned, and I thought the stairway he mentioned seemed like a weird thing to me - I mean, it could be nice, but it could also be difficult to navigate. How exactly they will address all those concerns, though, is a pretty big question. It's not an easy place to build, it has a lot of challenges.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Some parking availability is fine. I specifically mentioned parking is available in the CBD today. But at first glance, the scale appears to me to be an effort to create something that emphasizes driving more than we would normally see around the CBD. And I don't think it makes sense to simply say 'public transit isn't optimal in the area or the streets are not very walkable,' because the developer is obviously pursuing this with an understanding of the area. I think it makes sense to ask what exactly is the developer's intent.

Well, that's where numbers matter.

If buildings of the sizes proposed bring in an average of 5-600 workers (and that's conservative--probably even higher), and they each contain 150-200 parking spaces (which I agree is still too high--we will see what Sterling Bay ultimately proposes) that is still only enough parking for 30-40% of the employees.

Bear in mind that even with parking available, some employees will still choose not to drive. But for the remaining 60% or so, they need to find another means to get to their job other than on-site parking. So all in all, I don't think this even comes close to turning this into an auto-dominant office district.

Come out to the suburbs if you really want to see an auto-oriented office district. You will see oceans of surface parking, more than enough for everybody and their visiting uncle.

But I agree, I'd still like to see the parking ratio as low as possible.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by bcp

add security guards? let's add a wall and make it a brazilian compound..

That's the goal!

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah, aldermen can be pandering idiots in more ways than just "cut the height, density, won't anyone think of the child'n?!?!?" In this case its "please eliminate any and all distinguishing design features because my moronic constituents would like it to take 2X as long to pass through the site on the way to the lakefront. Voters in this ward really like to meander and would like you to build them a place where they can do that!".

This is exactly why we need an actual planning department and not aldermanic prerogative. Design by committee but the committee consists solely of idiots with literally no knowledge of what they are asking for.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.

This isn’t necessarily gonna lead them to increase density. If you add all these additional expenses, you’re essentially reducing the return on investment. That leads to less investment - not more.

I wasn’t a huge fan of the proposal, but this seems to me like the residents of LSE are holding this development to a ridiculously high standard.

[r18tdi]

Was there a dedicated thread for this proposal? I can't seem to find it.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Was there a dedicated thread for this proposal? I can't seem to find it.

Right here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=229046

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah, aldermen can be pandering idiots in more ways than just "cut the height, density, won't anyone think of the child'n?!?!?" In this case its "please eliminate any and all distinguishing design features because my moronic constituents would like it to take 2X as long to pass through the site on the way to the lakefront. Voters in this ward really like to meander and would like you to build them a place where they can do that!".

This is exactly why we need an actual planning department and not aldermanic prerogative. Design by committee but the committee consists solely of idiots with literally no knowledge of what they are asking for.

So the people chimed in with some suggestions OTHER than height and density and you STILL go off on them. SOOOO should people have NO say in what they want around them? I am not a fan of NIMBYs but who are you to think you know what should be built near where other people live? Its a kind reverse nimbysm. Standards being set are fine and taking some power away from the alderman is good too....but you have to provide some mechanism for the people who actually live there to voice their concerns/opinions.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by bcp

add green space for buildings on / adjacent to a park? that is pandering at it's worst...

add security guards? let's add a wall and make it a brazilian compound..

Is a Brazilian compound when you cross a waxing spa with a military base?

Originally Posted by r18tdi

That's the goal!

No, when talking about Brazil, that's the GOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALL!!!!

[Kngkyle]

They should just put all the buildings against LSD and consolidate the greenspace to the west creating a mini-LakeShore Park between the existing and new towers. They could put a soccer field or something there instead of having small 'chunks' of green space that aren't really big enough to be used for anything.

In reality there should be no more green space on these sites because the immediate area is surrounded by more green space than just about any place in the city, but that ship has sailed at this point.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Reilly Rejects Lakeshore East Parcel "IJKL" Proposal

Dear Neighbor:

I am writing to provide you with an update regarding LendLease and Magellan Development Group's proposed development of parcels "I, J, K & L" in Planned Development #70 that governs zoning in the Lakeshore East neighborhood.

,

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...st-development

December 13, 2017

Alderman rejects Lakeshore East development plan


Left, a view of Lakeshore East from the Chicago River; right, a rendering of one of the buildings by bKL Architecture.


The Chicago developer that wants to build more than 1,400 residential units and 300 hotel rooms between the Chicago River and Millennium Park must go back to the drawing board after downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly rejected its plan.
Magellan Development Group in July proposed the construction of three towers, including one standing 80 stories tall, in Lakeshore East, a massive project the firm has been developing for more than 15 years. The development includes the curvy Aqua Tower, completed several years ago, and Vista Tower, a 94-story skyscraper rising along the river.
But Reilly, 42nd, told Magellan and its partner, Lendlease, that the project “will not move forward in its current form,” according to an email from the alderman to constituents today.

The alderman did not directly criticize the density of the development but cited several concerns about it that don't look like deal breakers. Among other things, he wants more green space, better security and improved garage access, according to the email. He also raised concerns about the distance between the towers.
Magellan and Lendlease need to “reassess the positioning of towers on the podium and make a greater effort to ensure distances between newly proposed towers and existing buildings are more consistent with setbacks that currently govern the site,” Reilly wrote.
Reilly's email did not take issue with a fourth tower that Magellan also wants to build at Lakeshore East, a high-rise that was included in the proposal unveiled in July. That building would include as many as 640 residential units and 626 hotel rooms on a site known as Parcel O, at 195 N. Columbus Drive, just south of Aqua

...

[Vlajos]

I love this city, bit it can be maddening

[maru2501]

seems like relatively minor revisions

[F1 Tommy]

Reilly likes to get his name in the paper, but it does look like minor adjustments. I sure hope so as this whole plan is stunning.