PDA

View Full Version : CHICAGO | Grant Park 3 & 4 | (3) 790' - 73 FLOORS | (4) 900' - 83 FLOORS NEVER BUILT


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

BVictor1
Sep 25, 2007, 7:12 PM
I decided to form a new thread for the 2 Grant Park Towers. There's no need to cram all the information on these buildings into the One Museum Park thread.


http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1072/grantparktower4mr1.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6130/grantparktower3es1.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563932.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563933.jpg

SlatsGrobnik
Oct 5, 2007, 2:38 AM
Back from the meeting. They showed a rendering of Tower 3-the one we've seen before, 790'. No renderings yet for Tower 4; I asked about when that tower would be designed, and was given a figure of 18 months.

Very little new information, and many, many vapid comments about how Fulton (sp?) has to do something about the parking situation, the traffic situation, project safety, overcrowding in general, the flow of winds around the neighborhood in general (not his buildings in particular), and a host of other things that he has nothing to do with.

Fulton kept explaining over and over that thinner, taller towers are less crowded and let in more light. Bob O'Neill actually did a very nice job of explaining that residential towers have very little to do with traffic--it is the retail and attractions in the vicinity of residential towers that are the sources of traffic.

After an hour and a half of listening to inane NWAs (NIMBYs with attitude), I was either going to vomit or walk out, so I walked out.

Nice-ish building; horrible meeting.

SNT1
Oct 5, 2007, 2:51 AM
noooo, NIMBYs... bad news :(

alex
Oct 5, 2007, 3:15 AM
They also showed new pictures of the south and east elevations of GP3. They stated that there would be comercial spaces in both GP3 an GP4. They appear to be very serious about marketing GP3 starting next year and GP4 about 2009. They also have the plans to cover the railroad tracks but is up to the city to come up with the money. They apperently have plans to cover the tracks north of Macormick Place and to build highrises over the tracks. All the buildings along the south wall of Grant Park apparently have the blessing of the city, they just want permission to add ten floors to each of them and make them taller.

Nowhereman1280
Oct 5, 2007, 3:25 AM
NWAs (NIMBYs with attitude)

Wow, an acronym involving an acronym, isn't that a derivative? You know, X^2= 2X, N^WA=NIMBY(with attitude)? Mathmatical analogies anyone? Haha, sorry...

Loopy
Oct 5, 2007, 3:34 AM
It was a pretty good meeting actually. Nothing terribly exciting was revealed, except perhaps that there will be retail in the bases of these towers.

Five-O (Alderman Bob) was late, and off his game a bit when he did show up. I didn't get the sense that he was going to put up any opposition to this request for an administrative change on height. Being a good pol he listened carefully to all of the bleating. But at the end he commented that he wanted "a skyline that'll knock your socks off". Somewhat comforting to hear.

The NIMBY contingent was in force but actually pretty tame compared to other South Loop meetings I've been to lately. The Prairie Avenue cranks who showed up went into their usual feedback loop on parking and "congestion". They don't hold a candle to the Dearborn Park kooks, who blessedly stayed home tonight.

Knightwing
Oct 5, 2007, 3:39 AM
Wow, an acronym involving an acronym, isn't that a derivative? You know, X^2= 2X, N^WA=NIMBY(with attitude)? Mathmatical analogies anyone? Haha, sorry...

:haha:

Adam186
Oct 5, 2007, 3:43 AM
Ahhh, I love this forum. I wish my real friends were like you guys. So many one liners and inside jokes. :)

Sir Isaac Newton
Oct 5, 2007, 3:46 AM
noooo, NIMBYs... bad news :(

There were a few NIMBY's there - one who complained that it is difficult for visitors to find street parking when they are visiting him, one who complained that the South Loop is getting too congested, one who complained about shadows in Grant Park, one who complained about project safety, one who complained about large vacuums of winds in the area due to highrises and asked if they had done a "wind study", and an old lady who complained about birds dying from flying into skyscrapers.

However, the majority of the people there seemed to be in favor of the project. And since the developer wasn't asking for more units, but only to build a taller but thinner building, none of the complaints that were voiced were even relevant to the developer's request and the purpose of the meeting. Many people praised the design of the building and voiced their support for tall and thin buildings while no one argued against tall and thin buildings or the increased height of the building (although Fioretti refused to give a response to an audience member who asked him if he preferred tall and thin or medium sized and squat). Pretty much, the only times people applauded was after someone voiced an opinion in favor of the building and the height increase. The biggest round of applause was for Bob O'Neill, who gave a passionate speech in favor of the proposed building and framing the south side of Grant Park with tall and thin and environmentally sound buildings.

Overall, I am pretty optimistic that the proposed increase in height will be allowed.

Nowhereman1280
Oct 5, 2007, 3:54 AM
There were a few NIMBY's there - one who complained that it is difficult for visitors to find street parking when they are visiting him, one who complained that the South Loop is getting too congested, one who complained about shadows in Grant Park, one who complained about project safety, one who complained about large vacuums of winds in the area due to highrises and asked if they had done a "wind study", and an old lady who complained about birds dying from flying into skyscrapers.

However, the majority of the people there seemed to be in favor of the project. And since the developer wasn't asking for more units, but only to build a taller but thinner building, none of the complaints that were voiced were even relevant to the developer's request and the purpose of the meeting. Many people praised the design of the building and voiced their support for tall and thin buildings while no one argued against tall and thin buildings or the increased height of the building (although Fioretti refused to give a response to an audience member who asked him if he preferred tall and thin or medium sized and squat). Pretty much, the only times people applauded was after someone voiced an opinion in favor of the building and the height increase. The biggest round of applause was for Bob O'Neill, who gave a passionate speech in favor of the proposed building and framing the south side of Grant Park with tall and thin and environmentally sound buildings.

Overall, I am pretty optimistic that the proposed increase in height will be allowed.

Sounds like there are either lots of people who agree with the majority opinion on this forum or there were lots of fourmers there. Also, it sounds as if the bird lady was there. She's at every meeting to remind people of the birds!

cbotnyse
Oct 5, 2007, 4:06 AM
I really get a kick out of the NIMBY stories. It never ceases to amaze me how they can find anything to complain about. This is urban living! Move to the suburbs already people!

sale
Oct 5, 2007, 4:08 AM
BVic was at the meeting with his camera. Expect some photos of some new angles. Good looking building overall. Crazy people, though.

Alliance
Oct 5, 2007, 5:17 AM
so we're looking at 890' and 1000' then.

Thats good news.

Thanks to all ov you for your reports!

honte
Oct 5, 2007, 5:27 AM
^ I think Slats and BVic have indicated that the revised height would bring the third tower to 790'. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation.

Nowhereman1280
Oct 5, 2007, 5:34 AM
^^^ That's what I thought too, hopefully I am wrong!

Dr. Taco
Oct 5, 2007, 8:35 AM
Wow, I've never heard nimby's in person, and, while they were amusing at first, I can't believe how annoying and persistent they were! but they could have been worse, I suppose.

anyway, not much new information, but a few notes none-the-less

- early next year, plans will be revealed for a plan to cover the tracks from Roosevelt to McCormick place with parkland. The developers do not own the land anymore, however, so its up to the Chicago to actually fund the parkland. But plans are a good step forward

- After all is said and done, the southern tip of Grant Park is going to be re-landscaped to better match the 4 towers they're building

- The heights they want are 790' and 900' for GP3 and GP4. From the earlier versions, the number or residences and the basic total square footage will not change. Only the number of stories will be different (+10 stories each)

- The above point was the whole point of the meeting. Hence, it really wasn't a good meeting, since there wasn't much to talk about. Fioretti kept asking the developers to clarify exactly what was different between this proposal and the last, and they were kind of vague about it. Since the point of the meeting was about the change, I was expecting at least a comparison powerpoint slide between the old and new version. anyway

- There will be a 30,000 sq ft recreation floor in GP3

- There is no design yet for GP4. the elevations we have seen are basically a placeholder for what the final height will be. Or so they told the congregation...


Thats about it. I hope BVictor does add more info or clarifies later. and adds pictures. The color rendering of GP3 was really nice.
I was hoping to stick around and ask Fioretti about Park Michigan, but I got bored and left before the meeting was over

GOODnight

museumparktom
Oct 5, 2007, 11:29 AM
Thanks jstush04. I would be interested in where these NYMBY nut-jobs were from. DP, PR, PA or MP? Regardless I doubt that Fioretti or his Shock-troops can derail these two.

The covered Metra tracks are always such a tease. Everybody wants them but paying for them will be big issue. The developer(s) have never actually owned the air rights. The City always has and the deal was that the developer(s) were going to pony up 50% to put the park and then get public access on 13th and 18th as well as private access to OMP1, MP4 and a few others that sit on the Metra tracks. Anyone have pics of the new Roosevelt Station progress. That was one of the pieces that was holding the covered phase up.

Was there any discussion of retail along Roosevelt or Michigan Ave? BVic Post.

SlatsGrobnik
Oct 5, 2007, 11:34 AM
so we're looking at 890' and 1000' then.


Definitely not. The requested change is to allow tower 3 to go to 790' (and eventually tower 4 to 900'). :(

museumparktom
Oct 5, 2007, 12:00 PM
Retail question answered - sorry

the urban politician
Oct 5, 2007, 1:10 PM
- early next year, plans will be revealed for a plan to cover the tracks from Roosevelt to McCormick place with parkland. The developers do not own the land anymore, however, so its up to the Chicago to actually fund the parkland. But plans are a good step forward

^ You know, I seems it would make more sense for the city would prioritize covering the tracks in Grant Park instead of in the area east of Central Station.

I would even venture to say that the area east of Central Station might as well keep its tracks uncovered. If you look at how Central Station development has treated its eastern face, I'm not too sure a lot of people will want to see it so openly. I'm not sure podiums and blank walls will look good in front of a park

Alliance
Oct 5, 2007, 1:16 PM
What color is GP3?

I hope the actual render of GP4 is damn close to the rendering. These towers are getting wierder and wierder as we go west. OMP and W are ok. GP3 is a bit much, especially when you have somthing as distictive as the sail shape not really doing anyhting but facing another wall. It'd be nice to see a boxier form to tie it back into S. Michigan. I'm afraid another loopy building might really begin to isolate this part of the skyline.

Steely Dan
Oct 5, 2007, 2:13 PM
it was a fun meeting last night. many NIMBY kooks and weirdos, but they didn't have any ammunition for this meeting because all that was on the table was the 10 story height increase for the 2 towers to 790'/73 floors & 900'/83 floors. once the NIMBYs in the room figured out that the project was already fully approved and that they were utterly powerless to stop this building outright, you could sense their frustration setting in when they tried to derail the meeting with any number of off-topic side issues. i love it when these selfish dingleberries lose, hahaha.

after the meeting, victor and i hung around and spoke with the architect for several minutes about the design of GP3. i learned that the maximum horizontal projection of the sail is ~15' and the maximum horizontal projection for the wave element is ~7'. there was also an excellent rendering of OMP, OMPW, GP3, and the ghost place-holder image for GP4, we talked a bit about what direction they might go with for GP4 and i asked if the heights of the setbacks were intentionally lined up with the heights of the other buildings in the south wall and the architect said that was one of the avenues they were exploring right now.

there were some really great images presented and i know victor got good pics of them, so he'll be posting them soon.

VivaLFuego
Oct 5, 2007, 2:13 PM
I would assume decking over those tracks is contingent upon Metra building a new yard for the Electric Line, and who knows how far away that is.

dvidler
Oct 5, 2007, 2:32 PM
[QUOTE=Sir Isaac Newton;3093827]one who complained about large vacuums of winds in the area due to highrises and asked if they had done a "wind study", and an old lady who complained about birds dying from flying into skyscrapers.
QUOTE]
No NIMBY here but these are two legit concerns. As a full time pedestrian nothing is worse than wind tunnels. Especially in the winter. It is a big deterrent from walking at all.

And why do I love tall residential buildings in dense areas? Because its good to walk everywhere and its good for the planet as well. If the developer can use glass or other ways of hundreds of birds killing themselves during migration then so be it.

Anything with traffic and parking I can care less about.

cbotnyse
Oct 5, 2007, 2:37 PM
^^NIMBY!!!! :koko:

I kid. But come on, this is the windy city!

Ok I'll shutup now.

:P

SlatsGrobnik
Oct 5, 2007, 2:50 PM
What color is GP3?

I hope the actual render of GP4 is damn close to the rendering. These towers are getting wierder and wierder as we go west. OMP and W are ok. GP3 is a bit much, especially when you have somthing as distictive as the sail shape not really doing anyhting but facing another wall. It'd be nice to see a boxier form to tie it back into S. Michigan. I'm afraid another loopy building might really begin to isolate this part of the skyline.

It's bluish, and I agree completely with your sentiments; its a little funkier than I personally would like any of these buildings to be. But OMP is turning out nice, and at least OMPW is inoffensive if uninspired. Frankly, I'd like to see something very much like Park Michigan as tower 4--sleek, simple, and stylish.

Alliance
Oct 5, 2007, 3:16 PM
It's bluish, and I agree completely with your sentiments; its a little funkier than I personally would like any of these buildings to be. But OMP is turning out nice, and at least OMPW is inoffensive if uninspired. Frankly, I'd like to see something very much like Park Michigan as tower 4--sleek, simple, and stylish.

Since Park Michigan apprears to be the first major casualty of the boom, perhaps they can use that design and merely increase it 50 feet. Sould be realtively easy to do.

Loopy
Oct 5, 2007, 3:32 PM
I would expect that GP4 would be a much nicer design than Park Michigan. My sense is that P/H see's that tower as their opportunity to deliver a masterpiece.

They've taken a lot of crap about their ho-hum design output, and the GP towers seem to be their reply to that critcism.

forumly_chgoman
Oct 5, 2007, 3:53 PM
Since Park Michigan apprears to be the first major casualty of the boom, perhaps they can use that design and merely increase it 50 feet. Sould be realtively easy to do.
Maybe I missed something but I do not recall anything implying that

cubbbyblue
Oct 5, 2007, 4:50 PM
[QUOTE=Sir Isaac Newton;3093827]one who complained about large vacuums of winds in the area due to highrises and asked if they had done a "wind study", and an old lady who complained about birds dying from flying into skyscrapers.
QUOTE]
No NIMBY here but these are two legit concerns. As a full time pedestrian nothing is worse than wind tunnels. Especially in the winter. It is a big deterrent from walking at all.

And why do I love tall residential buildings in dense areas? Because its good to walk everywhere and its good for the planet as well. If the developer can use glass or other ways of hundreds of birds killing themselves during migration then so be it.

Anything with traffic and parking I can care less about.

I used to ride my bike over roosevelt every day over the past few summers on my way to work. I can tell you that almost every time i was climbing up the portion of roosevelt right after michigan, traveling east, I felt like i was already in a wind tunnell w/o any buildings.

dvidler
Oct 5, 2007, 5:53 PM
[QUOTE=dvidler;3094359][B][I]

I used to ride my bike over roosevelt every day over the past few summers on my way to work. I can tell you that almost every time i was climbing up the portion of roosevelt right after michigan, traveling east, I felt like i was already in a wind tunnell w/o any buildings.

I agree. Its windy already and I feel if there were buildings there it would actually improve the situation. But if it were to make it worse....

So, I feel its not a out of the ballpark kind of question

Alright, said my peace. On to other subjects...

ardecila
Oct 5, 2007, 8:36 PM
I would assume decking over those tracks is contingent upon Metra building a new yard for the Electric Line, and who knows how far away that is.

Metra and the city might be waiting for each other.

Also - is there any reason why the park can't be built ABOVE the tracks, like Riverside Park?

Dr. Taco
Oct 5, 2007, 8:38 PM
Also - is there any reason why the park can't be built ABOVE the tracks, like Riverside Park?

that will be the plan. They wouldn't get rid of the tracks

BVictor1
Oct 5, 2007, 8:46 PM
I decided to form a new thread for the 2 Grant Park Towers. There's no need to cram all the information on these buildings into the One Museum Park thread.

Below are several photos of the renderings that I took last night.

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563932.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563933.jpg

Rocket1
Oct 5, 2007, 8:54 PM
Nice looking building.


Is there a diagram that shows the location of this building within the Central Station complex?

bnk
Oct 5, 2007, 8:54 PM
Great job Victor, Nice update and nice to finally have a thread for these.

:tup:

Dolemite
Oct 5, 2007, 8:54 PM
I really like this tower...it will be a great compliment to OMP.

Is the 800 ft tower or the 900' one?

museumparktom
Oct 5, 2007, 9:05 PM
On a conference call all afternoon and we already into page 2. Man, glad to have these two with their one thread. I particularly like the Western exposure of the GP3 rendering. Nice even more subtle curves than i noticed before. This will look great with Sky55 behind it.

Were there any renderings of the plan for in covering the Metra tracks?

cbotnyse
Oct 5, 2007, 9:19 PM
can someone please post a map (maybe google map?) of the location of all of these, thanks.

and someone please page STR. :cool:

BVictor1
Oct 5, 2007, 9:22 PM
One of the final shots from last night.

What the southern streetwall will hopefully look like once built out. Tower 4 has yet to be designed.

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563935.jpg

VivaLFuego
Oct 5, 2007, 9:26 PM
^impressive. Very Po-Mo looking, but not in a bad way. Should be incredible from ground-level in the park.

What is the timeline for GP3, and what percentage of OMPW has sold so far?

bnk
Oct 5, 2007, 9:31 PM
Someone needs to post the Grant park lollapolza image, photo and render insert, that was posted a while back to give a people perspective from Grant park.

Norsider
Oct 5, 2007, 9:37 PM
That south wall of Grant Park is just straight up awesome.

F1 Tommy
Oct 5, 2007, 9:47 PM
Great job bvictor1..Great looking building.I am looking forward to seeing the
other buildings final designs.

Dan in Chicago
Oct 5, 2007, 9:55 PM
Since Park Michigan apprears to be the first major casualty of the boom....

I don't think it is a casualty, at least not yet. Anyway the first major casualty of the boom was 7SD. ;-)

Knightwing
Oct 5, 2007, 10:19 PM
it was a fun meeting last night. many NIMBY kooks and weirdos, but they didn't have any ammunition for this meeting because all that was on the table was the 10 story height increase for the 2 towers to 790'/73 floors & 900'/83 floors. once the NIMBYs in the room figured out that the project was already fully approved and that they were utterly powerless to stop this building outright, you could sense their frustration setting in when they tried to derail the meeting with any number of off-topic side issues. i love it when these selfish dingleberries lose, hahaha.

after the meeting, victor and i hung around and spoke with the architect for several minutes about the design of GP3. i learned that the maximum horizontal projection of the sail is ~15' and the maximum horizontal projection for the wave element is ~7'. there was also an excellent rendering of OMP, OMPW, GP3, and the ghost place-holder image for GP4, we talked a bit about what direction they might go with for GP4 and i asked if the heights of the setbacks were intentionally lined up with the heights of the other buildings in the south wall and the architect said that was one of the avenues they were exploring right now.

there were some really great images presented and i know victor got good pics of them, so he'll be posting them soon.

Good reporting. Thanks to both you and vic as well as everyone else present who posted.

Tom Servo
Oct 5, 2007, 10:20 PM
https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563935.jpg

:whatthefuck: ...sad

the base of the first two towers are awful to say the least... all four are too big, too similar in height, too shinny... god, how many tall, shinny, boring glass buildings with silly designs are we gonna be graced by before the end of this boom? p/h PLEASE stop competing with scb for the city's ugliest skyscrapers. i mean, is this the alternative to the pre-cast, painted concrete po-mo that ruined river north? why is architecture in this city so predictable? EDIT* ...uninspired would be an understatement.

cbotnyse
Oct 5, 2007, 10:21 PM
One of the final shots from last night.

What the southern streetwall will hopefully look like once built out. Tower 4 has yet to be designed.

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563935.jpg

perfect, thanks. so building 4 in this pic is just a guess right? what an amazing addition to the skyline.

alex
Oct 5, 2007, 10:32 PM
Although GP4 design is far from being completed, the architect told us that they were seriously considering a building desing with a step wise massing that would be topping out toward Michigan Ave. He also told us that the crowns of both OMP and OMPW would be lit up.

scalziand
Oct 5, 2007, 10:32 PM
I like the potential massing of GP4. Hopefully it will stay as a boxier concept.

Chicago Shawn
Oct 5, 2007, 10:49 PM
One of the final shots from last night.

What the southern streetwall will hopefully look like once built out. Tower 4 has yet to be designed.

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563935.jpg

Look how tiny 1212 S. Michigan is. Three years ago, that was the ONLY high-rise on Roosevelt Road, and the tallest building south of roosevelt, aside from the McCormick Place Hyatt and the tower in Hyde Park across from the Musuem of Science and Industry. Amazing.

cbotnyse
Oct 5, 2007, 11:04 PM
would somebody be able to take this rendering and widen it out to include the entire skyline? to see its real impact? thatd be great.

Jaroslaw
Oct 5, 2007, 11:05 PM
Good stuff. BTW, did anyone ask about the slow progress on OMPW?

Rocket1
Oct 5, 2007, 11:06 PM
:whatthefuck: ...sad

the base of the first two towers are awful to say the least... all four are too big, too similar in height, too shinny... god, how many tall, shinny, boring glass buildings with silly designs are we gonna be graced by before the end of this boom? p/h PLEASE stop competing with scb for the city's ugliest skyscrapers. i mean, is this the alternative to the pre-cast, painted concrete po-mo that ruined river north? why is architecture in this city so predictable? EDIT* ...uninspired would be an understatement.

It would look better if the buildings weren't so similar in height -- how about making GP4 about 1100' tall to create some diversity. :)

But, IMHO, these shiny buildings look A LOT better than the painted concrete buildings in River North.

Alliance
Oct 5, 2007, 11:33 PM
I kind of agree with Adrian. He's taking it too far, but these towers almost seem homogenous in thier wild attempts at variation. We need some nice retro-looking towers behind them. I'd almost like GP4 to be modeled after Waterview's siding. Glass, but some stone and metalwork too. Lets just avoid looking like (IMO POS) Dubai.

Hear that developers? Build more painted precast sh*t here and NOT in the northside.

However, I think the current state of architecture in Chicago is pretty damn outstanging.

spyguy
Oct 5, 2007, 11:41 PM
He also told us that the crowns of both OMP and OMPW would be lit up.

That's good to hear.

Nice photos BVictor, and great summaries by everyone.

Alliance
Oct 5, 2007, 11:43 PM
great news on the crowns. Its good to hear they have some purpose :haha:

Haworthia
Oct 6, 2007, 12:27 AM
:whatthefuck: ...sad

the base of the first two towers are awful to say the least... all four are too big, too similar in height, too shinny... god, how many tall, shinny, boring glass buildings with silly designs are we gonna be graced by before the end of this boom? p/h PLEASE stop competing with scb for the city's ugliest skyscrapers. i mean, is this the alternative to the pre-cast, painted concrete po-mo that ruined river north? why is architecture in this city so predictable? EDIT* ...uninspired would be an understatement.

I have to agree with you on one account. I think a tower half the height of OMP would look better and help integrate both towers it into the skyline. A bunch of tall towers in a line lacks something.

As for the building, I think it's ok, I just think it should be done somewhere else in the city.

Loopy
Oct 6, 2007, 12:55 AM
Good stuff. BTW, did anyone ask about the slow progress on OMPW?
Yes. Reason given: Top-Down construction of five levels of underground parking.

Dale
Oct 6, 2007, 1:42 AM
They also showed new pictures of the south and east elevations of GP3. They stated that there would be comercial spaces in both GP3 an GP4. They appear to be very serious about marketing GP3 starting next year and GP4 about 2009. They also have the plans to cover the railroad tracks but is up to the city to come up with the money. They apperently have plans to cover the tracks north of Macormick Place and to build highrises over the tracks. All the buildings along the south wall of Grant Park apparently have the blessing of the city, they just want permission to add ten floors to each of them and make them taller.

Wait a second, they want to add ten floors to the present 73 and 83, respectively ?

Loopy
Oct 6, 2007, 1:44 AM
No, 73 and 83 stories are the current proposed heights in the requested Administrative change.

Dale
Oct 6, 2007, 2:11 AM
No, 73 and 83 stories are the current proposed heights in the requested Administrative change.

Gotcha.

Loopy
Oct 6, 2007, 2:20 AM
Did anyone catch whether there will be active-use space surrounding the parking podium? P/H did this for the Park Michigan project, it would be welcome here as well.

Chicago2020
Oct 6, 2007, 2:24 AM
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e399/delta2094/Museum-Park-Development.jpg

BVictor1
Oct 6, 2007, 2:25 AM
Did anyone catch whether there will be active-use space surrounding the parking podium? P/H did this for the Park Michigan project, it would be welcome here as well.

Units for this tower come all the way down to the second floor on both the Roosevelt Road and Indiana Avenue sides, while the ground level will have retail space.

SlatsGrobnik
Oct 6, 2007, 2:45 AM
The problem is that the footprint AND height of these towers are too similar. Too bad they can't put a single Supertall in where towers 3 & 4 are planned. That would change the whole dynamic of the South wall--for the better, IMHO.

10023
Oct 6, 2007, 4:01 AM
I personally think that the southern streetwall would have been better with shorter buildings that formed a consistent wall. More square structures, that didn't have space between them just a few floors up. Then you could have the 800-1100 footers come in the second row, and capitalize on the views for more buildings. But more importantly, it would give some texture and depth rather than just a row of buildings with nothing behind them. With these behemoths in place, the lots behind won't be attractive for tall towers.

Dr. Taco
Oct 6, 2007, 4:17 AM
But more importantly, it would give some texture and depth rather than just a row of buildings with nothing behind them. With these behemoths in place, the lots behind won't be attractive for tall towers.

I really tend to agree with you (even though I'm pretty happy about what I've seen so far). Keep in mind that a lot (most? all?) of the land directly south of these four buildings is owned by the same developers.

Sort of insignificant, but they mentioned the space between GP3 and 4 is about 70'. and these buildings aren't all that tall. Hence, there is still a possibility for that dense feeling you would like in the area. Someone just needs to build something big, tall, and bulky during the next boom.

haha, next boom. if this one ever ends (<== rhetorical pondering)

cbotnyse
Oct 6, 2007, 4:38 AM
I personally think that the southern streetwall would have been better with shorter buildings that formed a consistent wall. More square structures, that didn't have space between them just a few floors up. Then you could have the 800-1100 footers come in the second row, and capitalize on the views for more buildings. But more importantly, it would give some texture and depth rather than just a row of buildings with nothing behind them. With these behemoths in place, the lots behind won't be attractive for tall towers.I would not disagree with this, you make some good points but would it be possible to do this, I mean enough room to pull something like this off? The lack of a wall here does not bother me at all however. We already have an amazing wall across the street, so I think it will create a good blend of old and new. And the height does not bother me one bit. Other cities would kill for buildings like this, I love the density the south skyline will now have. Something it has always lacked.

SNT1
Oct 6, 2007, 5:02 AM
Meh.

These guys look really good. Not every skyscraper will suit one's taste, (There are Chicago prop/UCs I don't like), but IMO on average, Chicago (and Hong Kong) has the best looking skyscrapers in the world. Gotta admit, GP4 scared me a little unitl I read the part that it isn't quite finished yet.

Hoping GP4 gets a Spire >:)

Alliance
Oct 6, 2007, 5:09 AM
Then you could have the 800-1100 footers come in the second row, and capitalize on the views for more buildings.

Thats on think I love about S. Michigan ave. You have the old streetwall with modern giants rising behind it. HOWEVER, the Randolph streetwall does not follow this design. I feel that having the Randolph and Roosevelt walls paralleling eachother is a valid decision.

I would have preferred the other, but perhaps these condos wouldn't have sold as well without the garunteed views. However, they're sure to bring along friends and hopefully its a diverse crowd.

Chi649
Oct 6, 2007, 5:36 AM
Seriously, OMP is turning out to be stunning, and if that is any indication on how the other three will look, we will have an absolute amazing wall of towers framing southern Grant Park. Remember, this is a WALL, do not expect layers of buildings or extreme height variation.

We have the best towers going up in the world right now and when the dust finally settles from our current boom, people will look at Chicago in amazement.

CHAPINM1
Oct 6, 2007, 6:17 AM
Pretty damn great I'd say and awesome to say the least! This will be a wonderful group of buildings and will be a great addition to continue expanding the loop. When all is said and done, these buildings will all look spactacular and go together perfectly! They will definetly be exciting to watch rise... :tup:

CHAPINM1
Oct 6, 2007, 6:22 AM
Seriously, OMP is turning out to be stunning, and if that is any indication on how the other three will look, we will have an absolute amazing wall of towers framing southern Grant Park. Remember, this is a WALL, do not expect layers of buildings or extreme height variation.

We have the best towers going up in the world right now and when the dust finally settles from our current boom, people will look at Chicago in amazement.

:iagree: BTW, hopefully the dust never will settle... Chicago is one of of VERY few cities that has the potential and strength to keep growing, AND is not afraid to.

honte
Oct 6, 2007, 7:00 AM
You know, I've come to decide that the undulating facades are tacky. The sail part is great, but it would be so much stronger with a blocky portion next to it. The south elevation is especially annoying.

Anyway, it will be great to have such density on the south wall, even if it's all P/H stuff for miles. :(

bnk
Oct 6, 2007, 7:05 AM
You did it my man.:cool:


Someone needs to post the Grant park lollapolza image, photo and render insert, that was posted a while back to give a people perspective from Grant park.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e399/delta2094/Museum-Park-Development.jpg

This will change alot of views for alot of out of towners enjoying our 2/3 attempt at a midwest version of CP NYC.

Still a long way to go and a lot of track to cover, but if the density coming demands it, it will happen and just in tme for 2016.

BTW the Columbian looks like an older cousin to these new upstarts, which is funny because alot of people bemoand that the Colombian was all by its lonesome.

Things Change around here and latley most for the better.

CHAPINM1
Oct 6, 2007, 7:10 AM
Anyway, it will be great to have such density on the south wall, even if it's all P/H stuff for miles. :(

I agree with you on that, even if I didn't like the designs like I do, I still would be glad and greatful to see them rise adding for the sake of adding density and the fact that there are two buildings each 800 and 900 feet tall being added to Chicago's great and continually growing skyline... Also, it's great that they are located where they are expanding the skyline southward and will really make a presence!!! :cool:

This complex will urge even more development of this height in this area. When flying into Chicago from the east or west 5 years from now, the skyline will seem twice as big, it will look so much different and so much more dense!!! :D By then there will probably be a number of other projects in the works as well.

forumly_chgoman
Oct 6, 2007, 7:13 AM
You did it my man.:cool:






This will change alot of views for alot of out of towners enjoying our 2/3 attempt at a midwest version of CP NYC.

Still a long way to go and a lot of track to cover, but if the density coming demands it, it will happen and just in tme for 2016.

BTW the Columbian looks like an older cousin to these new upstarts, which is funny because alot of people bemoand that the Colombian was all by its lonesome.

Things Change around here and latley most for the better.

Umm wouldn't be 3/4..since CP has essentially 4 walls and GP has 3

forumly_chgoman
Oct 6, 2007, 7:19 AM
I personally think that the southern streetwall would have been better with shorter buildings that formed a consistent wall. More square structures, that didn't have space between them just a few floors up. Then you could have the 800-1100 footers come in the second row, and capitalize on the views for more buildings. But more importantly, it would give some texture and depth rather than just a row of buildings with nothing behind them. With these behemoths in place, the lots behind won't be attractive for tall towers.

I agree..this is a good point...with such imposing height right at GP edge ther e is little impetus to grow behind them

bnk
Oct 6, 2007, 7:22 AM
Umm wouldn't be 3/4..since CP has essentially 4 walls and GP has 3

Touché but I was giving CP a little more credit for its older and more established build up around the park circa 50 years before we are even getting there.

I would say any fractions could be debated 1/8th more or less or we could explore even more difficult math if we have the right data points.

The point is that this will be at best a 270 degree smaller version of what NYC has one long ago.


No insult but we have the forever free and clear crowd to keep it this way for quite some time and I myself would not care for any more degrees of enclosure than we are already planning for the next generation.

So anymore comparisons to Central park is a moot point in my book.

chiphile
Oct 6, 2007, 8:40 AM
I agree..this is a good point...with such imposing height right at GP edge ther e is little impetus to grow behind them

Did Aon and prudential and BCBS inhibit anything growing behind them? Of course not, it's called the market. Likewise, the market will decide whatever goes behind these grant park towers.

nomarandlee
Oct 6, 2007, 9:26 AM
I agree..this is a good point...with such imposing height right at GP edge ther e is little impetus to grow behind them


I don't know if that is necessarily true. Though I would agree that it may not likely to be for a while buf if the near south side and Central Station ever gets near the cache that Illinois Center does then there may be an impetus to do so. Who would have though that someone would want to build something like Aqua or MO right in line behind tall buildings.

There may be other factors that prevent building tall behind this cluster such as available lots or not enough demand but the buildings themselves I don't think will be insurmountable obstacle. They may just as likely spur growth due to the changes to south Grant Park and increased neighborhood vibrancy and retail amenities that all together could increase additional demand as take away from it.

Alliance
Oct 6, 2007, 1:40 PM
When flying into Chicago from the east or west 5 years from now, the skyline will seem twice as big,

:haha: That because with buildings over 600 ft...it will have ;)

BVictor1
Oct 6, 2007, 3:49 PM
One final shot

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/564220.jpg

Alliance
Oct 6, 2007, 4:13 PM
Thanks Bvic :cool:

BVictor1
Oct 6, 2007, 4:31 PM
Originally Posted by 10023


I personally think that the southern streetwall would have been better with shorter buildings that formed a consistent wall. More square structures, that didn't have space between them just a few floors up. Then you could have the 800-1100 footers come in the second row, and capitalize on the views for more buildings. But more importantly, it would give some texture and depth rather than just a row of buildings with nothing behind them. With these behemoths in place, the lots behind won't be attractive for tall towers.

I agree..this is a good point...with such imposing height right at GP edge ther e is little impetus to grow behind them


I'll have to disagree, only because the lots behind the streetwall are already filled. If the master plan had been done correctly during the initial concept, maybe the concept of lower buildings along Roosevelt with taller buiuldings behind them would have been possible.

spyguy
Oct 6, 2007, 7:31 PM
You know, I've come to decide that the undulating facades are tacky. The sail part is great, but it would be so much stronger with a blocky portion next to it.

This is exactly what I've been thinking since the B&W renderings were shown. While I like the sail half of the building, the undulating half doesn't seem to fit and will probably look clumsy as part of the southern wall for years to come. A flat/blocky half would better suit the sail portion IMO.

Alliance
Oct 6, 2007, 7:36 PM
Now that they're together on my wall... GP3 has some real nice intereaction with the Intercontinental Hotel North tower.

SimbyHeart
Oct 6, 2007, 10:35 PM
Fu*k yea!

I like this design it has a asian feel to it, but I do think it will look better on the corner of michigan and roosvelt with the eastern elevation facing michigan so that curve that extrudes would over hang michigan, also make it 900 ft.

Nowhereman1280
Oct 7, 2007, 6:06 AM
This isn't tied to these developments, but they are supposed to be replacing that rickety old bridge over the tracks at that station right now, I can't remember if they have started or not yet.

Pru
Oct 7, 2007, 7:23 AM
This is exactly what I've been thinking since the B&W renderings were shown. While I like the sail half of the building, the undulating half doesn't seem to fit and will probably look clumsy as part of the southern wall for years to come. A flat/blocky half would better suit the sail portion IMO.

Yup, gotta agree with this. GP3 is probably about as "out there" as Chicago ought to go, BUT - that design works better when it's a subtle discovery behind something else, not when it's doing the total in-your-face routine as currently designed.

My problem with the streetwall is that it is not a wall; it's a comb. Tall & thin is really nice and works well within some dense height, but building / gap / building / gap / building / gap building / street just looks weird. There is zero room for error on a street wall.

museumparktom
Oct 7, 2007, 12:26 PM
This isn't tied to these developments, but they are supposed to be replacing that rickety old bridge over the tracks at that station right now, I can't remember if they have started or not yet.

After years of delays, Springfield released funds to start the project. Metra constructed a temporary worksite at Indiana and 11th Street with an entrance at Roosevelt last spring. 2 phases. First build an 11th Street station that connects with the Beaux Arts Bridge and then demolish the existing bridge.

Haworthia
Oct 7, 2007, 2:16 PM
Are these towers a done deal? It was never quite clear to me that they are. Does anyone know?

Alliance
Oct 7, 2007, 2:29 PM
Are these towers a done deal? It was never quite clear to me that they are. Does anyone know?

Are they built? No.

They're just all part of the same development.

aaron38
Oct 7, 2007, 3:44 PM
Yeah, I have to agree with Honte and Spyguy. The wavy elements feel like a fad, rather than great architecture that will hold up for the long haul.
Even the sail element doesn't feel right in the overall render of the streetwall.
That outward bulge should be at the end of a wall, not in the middle of it.

It doesn't look bad, but it could, and should, look a lot better.

kalmia
Oct 7, 2007, 10:28 PM
If the city doesn't have the money to build a park over the train tracks there, what about letting the developers of this South Loop location build it themselves and let them make it a private park for their residents, a golf course, additional buildings, whatever. We would all benefit from it being done, even if we cannot wander through there any time we want. The views will be improved and train riders down there will be somewhat shielded from the weather. Those who have used the Randolph / Millennium Park station before and after reconstruction know how much the benefit if being out of the weather can be.

cbotnyse
Oct 8, 2007, 12:04 AM
what are some of your opinions on what you'd like #4 to look like?

Mr Downtown
Oct 8, 2007, 12:25 AM
Those who have used the Randolph / Millennium Park station before and after reconstruction know how much the benefit if being out of the weather can be.

Huh? There is no station there.

The original PD obligated Central Station to build a "shell" for a new Roosevelt Road station south of Roosevelt. At the time it was thought there might be a significant hotel and office component. But Metra and the city have decided to build a new platform in the current location at 11th Place.

Pru
Oct 8, 2007, 2:12 AM
what are some of your opinions on what you'd like #4 to look like?

Well, in order to blend with the overall conservative and understated look of the Grant Park walls, I'd really love for them to avoid the all-glass look. Actually Park Tower would look just great there. Kind of a big brother to the Columbian. I'm just not sure that blue glass is going to stand the test of time, unless you throw in some good detail like 340 on the Park.

Overall, the more I think about it, the real problem here is that there's just nothing south or southwest of these buildings. The lack of massing leads to that "build tall because it's cool, not because it's necessary" feel that you see in some other cities.

the urban politician
Oct 8, 2007, 2:50 AM
Overall, the more I think about it, the real problem here is that there's just nothing south or southwest of these buildings. The lack of massing leads to that "build tall because it's cool, not because it's necessary" feel that you see in some other cities.

^ I imagine that this will change over time. The Hancock is surrounded now by a forest of highrises, although it took decades for that transformation to happen.

From how it appears, there is no better indication of the city's vision for the future of this part of town than its approval (and encouragement) of pretty tall buildings along the south wall of Grant Park.