CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[spyguy]

[Swicago Swi Sox]

One question I have had about 435 N. Park is their plan for Ogden Plaza across the street. Currently it is a kinda underused plaza with number shaped benches creating a pseudo sun-dial. Some renderings and plan documents still show the sun-dial, but others show an updated layout:



Anyone have any more info on their plans for this park?

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox

One question I have had about 435 N. Park is their plan for Ogden Plaza across the street. Currently it is a kinda underused plaza with number shaped benches creating a pseudo sun-dial. Some renderings and plan documents still show the sun-dial, but others show an updated layout:



Anyone have any more info on their plans for this park?

I agree Ogden Plaza is underutilized....its only purpose is to preserve sight lines from towers, but I never see any people in it. Its edges are eroded by all those wide streets, driveway and garage entries. Notice the best urban parks in cities have well defined boundaries and are shaped by the buildings around them. Those buildings are also more pedestrian friendly...by that I mean their ground floors are occupied by restaurants, retail, hotel and office entries....not blank walls and garages. You also don't have to cross 8 lanes of traffic to go between the two.

In my imaginary world, I'd rotate this building so that the driveway faces the Sheraton. Park Drive would then go away. I'd take Ogden Park (and the benefit it's on a slope) and actually pull the park up and over that lowrise portion. I'm ignoring the fact they'd want to keep that rooftop private...but again, this is my imaginary world.

[jcchii]

renders make that look much closer to Illinois.

There was an apt tower proposed for the site now behind the fencing, i thought

[ardecila]

How about a bit more simple fix - Ogden Park is designed to be on a slope, but you could lower the whole park to the elevation of Illinois. Then it would be sort of sunken, which would create great definition for the edges (although it would introduce new challenges wrt sight lines, access, and security). It would be kinda like the South Garden at the Art Institute, which only has buildings defining it on two sides. Landscaping and retaining walls fill in the other two.

I'm ignoring the fact that there's some kind of substation or city parking facility below the park.

Personally, I hope SCB doesn't renovate the plaza themselves. That hypothetical/proposed design from the site plan doesn't look like it would do anything to make the plaza more well-utilized. I'd rather the city save up some money, or put some funds from the developer into escrow, and then bring in a real landscape architect.

[Swicago Swi Sox]

If it is SCB's design and the Developers are footing the bill, instead of the city, I wonder what their real motivation would be? Do they want to provide a nice functional park for the community, or just provide a pretty visual for residents and guests in the new building from above?

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox

If it is SCB's design and the Developers are footing the bill, instead of the city, I wonder what their real motivation would be? Do they want to provide a nice functional park for the community, or just provide a pretty visual for residents and guests in the new building from above?

I'm going to guess the developer wants a pretty park there to sell as a feature to potential residents. That being said, they are probably more interested in making it into something that looks like it will be used instead of something that will be used.

That being said, the biggest problem with this park (imo) is the wide streets that disconnect it from nearby buildings and its skinny proportions that make it seem more like sitting in the middle of a street than a park.The trees they propose adding and paths that run through them seem like it may fix this problem to an extent. Which brings me to Ardecilia:

I'd rather the city save up some money, or put some funds from the developer into escrow, and then bring in a real landscape architect.

I'm willing to bet SCB is big enough to have at least one person trained as a landscape architect, esp. considering the number of amenity decks they do.

Anyways, the building is looking even better. If the w=a was a 10/10, this is a good 7.5 - 8, a solid C or B- performance.

Also, here are some floorplans from Chicago Architecture Blog.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

I'm willing to bet SCB is big enough to have at least one person trained as a landscape architect, esp. considering the number of amenity decks they do.

Yeah, but do you really want a public plaza designed like an amenity deck? Each is a fundamentally different kind of place. As far as I can tell, SCB doesn't do any landscape apart from the immediate surroundings of their buildings. They have no major public spaces in their portfolio.

As Hayward mentioned, the wide roads surrounding Ogden Plaza are a moat that separates it from the surrounding buildings. Any activity in the buildings cannot spill out into the plaza for this reason.

There are different ways to remedy this, with virtually all of them involving some kind of programmed activity on the site. Maybe there's a concession stand that opens up there, or a free stage where musicians can reserve a time slot for free. Millennium Park included all kinds of cool interactive art. But trees and benches are certainly not enough, even if you throw in a fountain or sculpture.

[ChiPhi]

^^^^ Good point on the amenity deck thing, now I wonder if anyone at SCB has been trained classically as a landscape architect (because the skills to create a public plaza would, I hope, be covered).

Either way, a stage is a great idea. It would be a great way to lure people away from Michigan Ave esp. if people could count on a free concert in the warmer months on any given day (there is certainly no dearth of indie talent looking for a place to play). It may be enough to create another locus of tourist interest... That's probably getting ahead of myself, but it would be nice either way. Maybe an "outdoor art museum" with sculptures and such would be nice as well. It could be curated in such a way that hedges provide an actual museum-like experience in which one moves from "room" to "room" in a path of discovery and encourage people to linger.

[denizen467]

It's quite nice that the east face of the podium is so nicely designed, considering that New Street is being cemented as nothing but a service drive. In other cities one would have expected less.

But what of the once-planned (?) pedestrian link connecting the supposedly public plaza between the City View towers across New Street westward to this parcel? I guess that vision is now dead?

[ChiPhi]

^^^ I was pretty depressed to see that, other than the one nice side with those walls of glass, it is just acres of concrete. Not only is there no connection to that plaza, it is essentially choked by the concrete wall that will go up in front of it.

[denizen467]

^ Problem is that City View's first couple floors are one giant wall of impenetrable red, so there'd be nothing to look at even if more windows were used. The limited windows that actually are planned should line up with the view corridor down Ogden Slip (which actually isn't all that interesting from the 3rd or 4th floor, but better than nothing). So given all that, they could've tried to get away with something much worse and unfinished-looking, and I'm glad they didn't.

[denizen467]

Also, why not give these streets proper names once and for all, rather than "New" and "Park". How about a tip of the hat to Gail Spreen, longtime steward of Streeterville development.

[ChiPhi]

^^^huh, I guess that makes sense. Good point.
What about the view south onto Water Street? The Sheraton isn't that bad to look at? I haven't been to this area of the city in years so my memory is obviously a bit fuzzy.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

What about the view south onto Water Street? The Sheraton isn't that bad to look at?

True but on the bottom two floors I think it's just an endless parade of taxis and cars and limos and minibuses for all the conventioneers and guests at the Sheraton, and for 435's residential lobby to have their headlights shining in and out all evening it might get to be too much. I'd say let's focus on the west facade -- and marvel at the huge glass walls they've provided. Those will be the public face and I think they look somewhat ambitious and rather nice. They also partly wrap around onto North Water Street.

[ChiPhi]

This is still not anything to complain about by any means. I really like this glass. Something along that wall would've been nice though, even if they put a Walgreen's or other convenience store that had an entrance to the lobby of the residential portion and windows onto the street, just so conventioneers didn't see concrete wall. Still, a concrete wall is better than an empty lot.

[Baronvonellis]

Is this a city or a vertical gated community? How about some ground floor retail? I'm sure the people that live there would like someplace to shop. It's so dead around there you need some shops and streetlife.

[Swicago Swi Sox]

^^On street names...I like the name North Park Drive. Sounds like a place I'd like to live. I agree that the name New Street leaves something to be desired, but the actual street itself also leaves something to be desired. Once this is built it will basically be a canyon of precast and loading docks. If I were Gale Spreen, I might hold out for a better option...

Speaking of New Street, one thing that seems to be missing is an update for the stairs from upper North Water street down to lower New street. This could be a vital route for guest and residents of both this building and the Sheraton to access the River Walk only one block South. Currently there is a little switch back stair tucked onto the Sheraton's property. Even though it is finished a little nicer than most in the area, it is still tucked right against one of the Sheraton's louvers, and it spits you out right onto the apron of the Sheraton's loading dock. Something that let people out so that they were pointed further East on Lower North Water street and then to McClurg would be nice. See below:

[george]

3-13 K2

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Great to hear on 73 E. Lake..........had noticed a couple weeks ago some workers on site marking up sidewalk on Lake St side, so maybe prep for demolition of current nasty structure on site is imminent?

Perhaps not imminently imminent, as Crain's article today on pending sale of M&R Development's most recent downtown apartment project - Parc Huron, for a rich price - notes that financing for 73 E. Lake has not yet been secured, and final city council approval hasn't yet occured...........even so, I don't think we'll have a long wait to get 73 E. Lake off the ground..........talk about a phenomenal location....


Also, as I think others have noted, overall I like the design changes for 435 Park......still concerned with certain elements of the base, but if this proposal actually gets out of the ground in the next 12-18 months, it would be by far the tallest of the (exclusively) echo-boom era (excluding the boom/echo-boom) 111 W. Wacker, of course.......Can someone remind me: Is 435 the project that Loews Hotel is not slated for? I'm curious to see, when the high-rise phase eventually arrives for Block 37, which hotel chain will fill Loews' shoes there? (I do believe the right high-rise program mix is 1 residential/1 hotel tower, or 1 combined residential/hotel tower).....