CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The number of units increased by 250.

Yeah didn't notice that. I'm interested to see how they changed the program. And if they shrank the podium, how are they accommodating parking for even more units than they had before?

Looks like the north tower got 25' taller and the south tower got 335' shorter. IMO this is a mistake, the taller tower should be the one closer to the river mouth. I'd definitely be less disappointed with the height chop if the design had been mirrored. Not sure why they did this, except maybe to reduce shadows falling on the townhouses slightly?

But the original program was 300 condos/175 hotel/550 apartment. Now it is apparently 1100 apartments only? Those condos must have been big 3-bedroom super-luxury units originally if they could cut the height so much and still end up with more units. Unfortunately it looks like Related axed the condos after seeing mediocre sales at One Bennett and Tribune - 400 LSD is arguably a worse location from a livability standpoint than the other two.

It definitely seems like the new construction condo market is focused on high-income neighborhoods with good quality of life - West Loop, Wicker, Lincoln Park. Streeterville to today's condo buyer is too sterile and sleepy.

[CrazyCres]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

How many sites remain in the city for a building like this? Probably not too many.

You're certainly right. Their arent much left, there are two sites next to the NBC Tower. Maybe a version of the Waldorf Astoria Tower could be built on one of those sites.

But I thank SOM for the design they gave us it would have been unique among the skyline and a fan favorite but because of the Alderman and related it appears that won't be the case, Unfortunately

[spyguy]

Pretty uninspiring to say the least. Hopefully it hasn't been VE'd to death in terms of materials. Related has a bad history of new towers in this town so there's no reason to be optimistic once construction starts.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Unfortunately it looks like Related axed the condos after seeing mediocre sales at One Bennett and Tribune - 400 LSD is arguably a worse location from a livability standpoint than the other two.

It definitely seems like the new construction condo market is focused on high-income neighborhoods with good quality of life - West Loop, Wicker, Lincoln Park. Streeterville to today's condo buyer is too sterile and sleepy.

I thought Tribune was having pretty good sales? I'm not sure where I heard this but I thought they were looking at around 25% sold or under contract right now?

[chris08876]

Such a prime, prominent location too. I like the design, but its unfortunate that the site won't be used for its full potential. I mean a location like this does not come very often.

It just feels like the lazy way out. Risk management is important, but it would be nice if the developers took a little risk and thought about the long-term optics. Would be a shame for this to be built, sold out or close/full functionality, ONLY to find out that they could of maximized even more in due time.

It would be like wanting something high-end for $1000, but settling for the crappy $400 option, and than a month later, the $1000 item drops to $500. Yeah you got something in the end, but yah didn't get the best product because of being impatient.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Such a prime, prominent location too. I like the design, but its unfortunate that the site won't be used for its full potential. I mean a location like this does not come very often.

It just feels like the lazy way out. Risk management is important, but it would be nice if the developers took a little risk and thought about the long-term optics. Would be a shame for this to be built, sold out or close/full functionality, ONLY to find out that they could of maximized even more in due time.

I totally see things from the developer's point of view in terms of money, and can understand the hesitancy of building a half a kilometer building, but they took being conservative too far, at least give the world something halfway decent and impressive.

I'd note Parcel I is a similar caliber location although the other side of the river from Vista would be better.

[chris08876]

Yeah I mean, a mega tall would be out of line, but I feel like they are taking the safe safe option. Developers tend to vary on their level of tolerance. Some will build on-spec, some will wait until the time is right, even in markets that have seen success with similar developments of a similar magnitude and pipeline addition of sq-footage.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

BOO on the 225' height chop.


YAY on keeping the same basic design language!

I thought that image was just of the previous design, not of the new design? I think they're waiting to reveal the actual new design in the community meeting?

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by emathias

I thought that image was just of the previous design, not of the new design? I think they're waiting to reveal the actual new design in the community meeting?

In the previous rendering the towers were sitting on a large podium and the south tower was the taller of the two.

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Yeah I mean, a mega tall would be out of line, but I feel like they are taking the safe safe option. Developers tend to vary on their level of tolerance. Some will build on-spec, some will wait until the time is right, even in markets that have seen success with similar developments of a similar magnitude and pipeline addition of sq-footage.

These buildings are fine. Folks going overboard with regards to location, lost opportunity, etc. need to get out and travel more.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

These buildings are fine. Folks going overboard with regards to location, lost opportunity, etc. need to get out and travel more.

Chicago built plenty of ground breaking supertalls in prior generations. Today we only have more money, more technology, and are witnessing one of the biggest central area booms on the continent.

Related is being lame. Period. They need to cut that shit out and let a local developer do right by this prime real estate. I’m not even that big on supertalls, but to go from the Spire to this crap is a big let down!

[Darude_Sandstorm]

IMO this looks better
https://imgur.com/B42n4yh

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago built plenty of ground breaking supertalls in prior generations. Today we only have more money, more technology, and are witnessing one of the biggest central area booms on the continent.

Related is being lame. Period. They need to cut that shit out and let a local developer do right by this prime real estate. I’m not even that big on supertalls, but to go from the Spire to this crap is a big let down!

Why is it crap? Because it's not tall? And today we have more money? Huh?

There will always be different sides/opinions and I respect that. But to say because it's a "prominent" location and therefore needs to be tall is, well, not the same opinion as everyone here. I will agree that it IS a prominent location and whatever is built there deserves to have good design, materials and execution. And I think this has that chance.

Has to be tall?? Silliness.

[Darude_Sandstorm]

I think there needs to be a little more narrow "vanity" height for proportion sake, so this has a little more narrow height up top.
https://imgur.com/wep8mvv

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago built plenty of ground breaking supertalls in prior generations. Today we only have more money, more technology, and are witnessing one of the biggest central area booms on the continent.

Related is being lame. Period. They need to cut that shit out and let a local developer do right by this prime real estate. I’m not even that big on supertalls, but to go from the Spire to this crap is a big let down!

Related is lame, no argument there

[Steely Dan]

* moderator note *


Any post that even casually mentions NYC In this thread will be summarily deleted from here on out.

[Chicago_Forever]

The more I look at the revised plans next to the original, the more disappointed I get. Not only did both towers receive major haircuts, they were also VE'd to death. I also don't care for the new orientation of the towers - the whole thing looks bow-legged now. This is like the knockoff version of the original. The only good here is that they kept the two tower scheme which I've always preferred over just one giant tower.

I don't think this is the best location for a Mega-tall like some here seem to believe but it deserves better than this - at least a 1000 footer. This thing won't even make Chicago's top 10 tallest when it's completed. Luckily, there's still some prime spots in Streeterville in empty/parking lots and garages for skyline defining projects in the future - as long as they don't fall in the wrong hands.

Anyway, both Related and Riley - maybe the city? - are to blame for this disaster. I still don't understand why a hotel isn't allowed here. And I really liked the podium of the original design and how it tied the two towers together. Funny how Reilly didn't seem to have an issue with that huge nasty podium at 500 N LSD, which is one of the worst along LSD drive, but this he had a problem with

I will try to attend the meeting on the 10th but I'm definitely going to email Riley's office to let him know how much of a disappointment this new proposal is. I suggest everyone on here who's as disappointed do the same and show up at the meeting. Does anyone have Related Midwest President, Curt Baily's contact info?

Alderman Brendan Reilley
Phone: 312-642-4242
Email: office@ward42chicago.com

[JK47]

Honestly I don't give a shit if Related is complaining that the hotel component makes this site difficult to develop at a profit. They knew what they were getting into when they picked up the site, with what's been built there and what was planned.

They bought a signature site on the cheap out of bankruptcy and now they're complaining that it's expensive...maybe even unprofitable...to develop? Tough shit.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Why is it crap? Because it's not tall? And today we have more money? Huh?

There will always be different sides/opinions and I respect that. But to say because it's a "prominent" location and therefore needs to be tall is, well, not the same opinion as everyone here.

It is a prime location given it's centrality however, more practically, whatever is built there needs to be tall in order for it to be VISIBLE. Centerpieces or prominent features usually aren't hidden by their surroundings...they quite literally stand out.

I will agree that it IS a prominent location and whatever is built there deserves to have good design, materials and execution. And I think this has that chance.

I'm sorry you're blind. That explains your inability to see, quite plainly, that this has been VE'd significantly from the prior design so it won't have good design, materials, or execution (especially once they VE it again after planning commission approval and during construction).

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

And today we have more money? Huh?

I think he means the city continues to increase it's number of high paying, white collar jobs. At least in the central area. It's hard to deny that fact.

And Welcome back TUP!!!