CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7 - Page 825

marothisu · #**16481** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

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.

chris08876 · #**16482** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 4:06 PM**

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.

Handro · #**16483** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 4:13 PM**

If The 78 (ugh) ever gets built out like they're proposing, that angle will look like almost like a new city.

Tom In Chicago · #**16484** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

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/

. . .

r18tdi · #**16485** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 8:12 PM**

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.

chicubs111 · #**16486** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 8:17 PM**

^ Damn...always a reduction in height!..almost everytime ..does 30 ft reduction really satisfy some people who complain about nonsensical things?

Randomguy34 · #**16487** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 8:27 PM**

I'd be happy if the Lagrange project gets cut by another 467 ft, really not feeling this one

west-town-brad · #**16488** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111

^ 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.

r18tdi · #**16489** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 8:58 PM**

Maybe the developer will pivot to micro rentals and build 164 units as-of-right.

KWillChicago · #**16490** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 11:31 PM**

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

jc5680 · #**16491** Posted **Jan 18, 2020, 5:06 PM**

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.

bgsrand · #**16492** Posted **Jan 18, 2020, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

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?

skysoar · #**16493** Posted **Jan 18, 2020, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

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.

aaron38 · #**16494** Posted **Jan 18, 2020, 7:03 PM**

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.

Cheap_Shot · #**16495** Posted **Jan 18, 2020, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgsrand

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.

chicubs111 · #**16496** Posted **Jan 18, 2020, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

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

pilsenarch · #**16497** Posted **Jan 18, 2020, 8:59 PM**

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...