CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction - Page 319

Nowhereman1280 · #**6361** Posted: **Nov 4, 2011, 7:54 PM**

High-res rendering of K2's base from Illinois Real Estate Journal:

rejournals.com

Anyone else fail to notice the cantilevered pool area over the railroad tracks? I wonder if that feature is for real...

Also this image:

Tom In Chicago · #**6362** Posted: **Nov 4, 2011, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I mean construction photos! I want to see this hole in the ground!!!

There are 16 construction photos on that page. . .

http://www.pbcchicago.com/content/pr....asp?pID=05265

. . .

Nowhereman1280 · #**6363** Posted: **Nov 4, 2011, 9:19 PM**

Oh didn't see the thumbnails...

jdcpamba · #**6364** Posted: **Nov 4, 2011, 9:23 PM**

The photos are about 4 weeks behind. The excavation is getting pretty big. I would have taken some pictures on my phone, but dropping my phone in the toilet pretty much killed that idea.

untitledreality · #**6365** Posted: **Nov 5, 2011, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pyropius

Yes, yes, of course. But after seeing how terrible Irving/Sheridan is turning out with the Thorek 6-flat demo and the Walgreens under construction, the proposal at Halsted/Bradley was far more than I was expecting.

Very, very good point.

Hayward · #**6366** Posted: **Nov 5, 2011, 7:11 AM**

The pool is cantilevered over what is supposed to be an alley-way. Currently there is nothing there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdcpamba

The photos are about 4 weeks behind. The excavation is getting pretty big. I would have taken some pictures on my phone, but dropping my phone in the toilet pretty much killed that idea.

Unless the toilet was filled with s#$% just place the phone near some baking soda and it should be working again after awhile. Haven't done this myself, but I know people who have had their phones working again after this particular accident.

denizen467 · #**6367** Posted: **Nov 5, 2011, 5:38 PM**

^ Would be cool if it had a glass bottom. (I am talking about the pool.)

SamInTheLoop · #**6368** Posted: **Nov 5, 2011, 6:17 PM**

Either way, were it me, that phone would be in the trash quicker than if it were Jerry Seinfeld himself.

Is the pool actually partly in the cantilevered section of the deck? I guess it seems deep enough, but also looks like the southern edge of the pool itself is fairly close to where the cantilever actually begins..................I'm so disgusted with how lame the vast majority of pools are these days at what otherwise passes for 'luxury' residential developments and hotels. They're mostly like 3 1/2 - 4' deep and overall quite small. If it's not at minimum deeper than I am tall and with some room to do some serious swimming or relax and spread out in without feeling like other people are on top of you, it's just a gross communal bath to cool off in during a hot day....no thanks, I'll just take a shower....let's bring some real practical functionality back to the swimming pool....

macatawa · #**6369** Posted: **Nov 6, 2011, 2:06 PM**

On friday, i was walking past the site of the three hotel complex at Clark and Illinois. There were workers on-site, plus cement trucks, and one worker told me that construction had already started.

the urban politician · #**6370** Posted: **Nov 6, 2011, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by macatawa

On friday, i was walking past the site of the three hotel complex at Clark and Illinois. There were workers on-site, plus cement trucks, and one worker told me that construction had already started.

LOVE IT! Architecturally banal for sure, but I really like the way the layout and density of this proposal, as well as the lack of a podium

HowardL · #**6371** Posted: **Nov 6, 2011, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

LOVE IT! Architecturally banal for sure, but I really like the way the layout and density of this proposal, as well as the lack of a podium

I have to agree with you. And hotels do tend to liven up a district.

spyguy · #**6372** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 4:47 AM**

Now only a single apartment tower (about 500' tall) with a Mariano's and XSport plus townhomes for a total of 620 units.

lawfin · #**6373** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 4:57 AM**

^^^I am tryi g to remember the original plan was that the one that consisted of something like 5 buidling ranging from midrise to 40 or so stories.....too bad its scaled back

J_M_Tungsten · #**6374** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 6:20 AM**

Not bad. Reminds somewhat of the skybridge building for some reason.

Nowhereman1280 · #**6375** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin

^^^I am tryi g to remember the original plan was that the one that consisted of something like 5 buidling ranging from midrise to 40 or so stories.....too bad its scaled back

I think you are thinking of the right one, but remember that the old one had an absolutely atrocious podium (this one is not bad all things considered), a shit load of parking (like 2500 spaces or something ridiculous), and completely lagrangian, banal, architecture. Also, it appears that this one appears not to include plans to destroy that awesome 1960's structure on the NE corner of the intersection.

I'd be willing to bet that the density of this project isn't all that much lower since this tower looks taller and wider than even the tallest of the towers they were proposing before.

HomrQT · #**6376** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I think you are thinking of the right one, but remember that the old one had an absolutely atrocious podium (this one is not bad all things considered), a shit load of parking (like 2500 spaces or something ridiculous), and completely lagrangian, banal, architecture. Also, it appears that this one appears not to include plans to destroy that awesome 1960's structure on the NE corner of the intersection.

I'd be willing to bet that the density of this project isn't all that much lower since this tower looks taller and wider than even the tallest of the towers they were proposing before.

This is the original proposal. I prefer the two towers to the one.

From http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....ght-vote-.html

Steely Dan · #**6377** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 3:56 PM**

on the surface, the new single tower scheme is VASTLY superior.

Chicagoguy · #**6378** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 4:47 PM**

I love this proposal and I have been a supporter of the development of this area since the first renderings came out. This new design is great and I think the height and density will be great additions to the neighborhood. They seem to have gotten some kind of agreement with Xsport now, which from a first months ago was just labeled as a gym. I think with Marianos and Xsport in some type of verbal agreement or contract this could actually have a chance of breaking ground fairly soon!

Buckman821 · #**6379** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 4:57 PM**

I definitely prefer it to the original concept with that wannabe old school look. However I'm a little disturbed by this proposal, and also the one on Halsted & Bradley having bases that seem disproportionately large for the size of the tower(s) above it. In that sense, I like the massing of the original. The base was large but it seemed more appropriate with two bulky towers.

Also where are these town-homes that were referenced? I'm not seeing them in the rendering.

Chicagoguy · #**6380** Posted: **Nov 7, 2011, 5:12 PM**

Another thing I just noticed but on the northwest edge of the proposal there seems to be a surface parking lot, something that wasn't in the original renderings. Is that part of this proposal or something completely different?