EVANSTON | 708 Church St. (Fountain Square Tower) | 409 FT| 35 FLOORS

[Steely Dan]

well, it looks like this proposal is back from the dead with a new height. from evanstonnow.com:


Tower revamped for new height limit
Monday, Feb. 23, 2009, at 2:15 pm
Bill Smith

Developer Tim Anderson confirmed today that the 708 Church St. development team has submitted a revised proposal to the city for a 35-story tower.

The new plan slices three floors from the previous project design to bring it in under the 385-foot height limit for the Fountain Square block adopted by the City Council as part of the downtown plan earlier this month.

read more: http://www.evanstonnow.com/story/new...w-height-limit

[trvlr70]

I'm so pissed at Evanston and I don't think the city deserves a great tower anymore. If the same number of units remains the same and the square footage hasn't changed, then all that has is that the building has become squat. Since the biggest complaint of the original tower was the increased traffic because of residents, then I can't see how this proposal will fly. And if it does, it would be hypocritical and biased against taller, slender towers.

[Steely Dan]

if you want to see images of the new design, click the link below:

http://www.cityofevanston.org/depart...StAddendum.pdf

it appears to be pretty similar to the last design, but with 3 floors knocked off the top and the set back heights increased to make up for the lost square footage. overall, it still looks pretty good, if a bit more squat, and at nearly 400' it would still give evanston's cute little skyline the defining peak that it needs.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

I'm so pissed at Evanston and I don't think the city deserves a great tower anymore. If the same number of units remains the same and the square footage hasn't changed, then all that has is that the building has become squat. Since the biggest complaint of the original tower was the increased traffic because of residents, then I can't see how this proposal will fly. And if it does, it would be hypocritical and biased against taller, slender towers.

i don't really see how it would be hypocritical. the NIMBYs of evanston have been railing against this project for a great many reasons, not the least of which has been the height of the tower. whether you like it or not, there are many people in evanston who are far more concerned about the height of a building than it's FAR calculation or traffic generation. is there a lot of ignorance that goes into that type of thinking? of course, but it's a reality none-the-less, and the compromise made with the height reduction may finally allow this project to squeak through the approval process. i still say that's better than nothing, and the redesigned tower is still quite attractive, and in some ways it is more interesting than the original design.

[Chicago Shawn]

I remember sitting in the planning meetings over the original proposal and listening to NIMBYs whine about the tower but then also complain about the high taxes in Evanston. Slide #17 in that presentation hopefully will sway some negative thoughts on the tower, as it projects this tower will generate an additional $22 million in real estate taxes for the TIF, and then another $114 Million generated for Evanston's taxing bodies over the 20 years after the TIF expires.

[Tom In Chicago]

Still looks like an acceptable building despite the height reduction. . .

[honte]

I'm just glad to see the corner building is no longer absent in their renders.

[scalziand]

Still seems like a decent proposal. What's up with the poll?

[Steely Dan]

^ the poll in this thread was disabled ages ago when it became clear that the horner proposal for the same block was fully dead.

Originally Posted by honte

I'm just glad to see the corner building is no longer absent in their renders.

yep, the demo of the old fountain square building always seemed unnecessary to me. fountain square doesn't need to be made larger, it just needs to be designed smarter as the focal point of downtown evanston.

[spyguy]

I wish it was taller, but I still think it would be a good addition to Evanston. The base looks decent and the retail space seems to have the proper height to make it inviting.

[BVictor1]

There's actually a poll on the EvanstonNow website about whether the tower should be approved.

Supprisigly, out of the roughly 100 votes, about 60% say yes.

Have we turned a mental corner or is it just the need for jobs?

[Steely Dan]

^ i don't think that a mental corner has been turned, just perhaps that some of the less vehement NIMBYs finally feel like 385' is a compromise they can live with, even if begrudgingly. many evanston NIMBYs are just reactionaries who have to be appeased by letting their "voice" be heard and by allowing them to extract a certain amount of flesh from the evil, greedy developer. yeah, it's stupid, but such is life in a community with far more than its fair share of the self-important types.

then there are the other 40% of evanstonians who don't want anything built anywhere at anytime. they're a lost cause. there is no compromise that is amenable to that hard-line contingent.

[Steely Dan]

a good read from evanstonnow.com outlining the differences between the old and new designs:


What's new in the new tower plan
Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009, at 4:20 pm
Bill Smith

The new 35-story plan for the 708 Church St. tower in Evanston includes two major design changes.

Compared to the previous 38-story story design, the midsection of the new design from Booth-Hansen architects has a smaller setback from the property line.

read more: http://www.evanstonnow.com/story/new...new-tower-plan





also, the "fountain square tower" name was never really official, so i guess we should follow bill smith's lead and refer to this one by it's address for now.

[Steely Dan]

here's a rendering of the new design from focus development's pdf submittal to the city of evanston. i'm starting to dig the staggered setbacks. compared to the last iteration, the setbacks are now much more dynamic and don't make the over composition fel so bottom heavy. even though it's shorter, the tower feels more "skyward" from this perspective.

new:




old:

[honte]

^ Staggered setbacks make it look even more like a Legacy ripoff.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Staggered setbacks make it look even more like a Legacy ripoff.

i'm ok with that because the constraints of this site certainly drive the wedge form much more than the constraints of the legacy's site drive its shape.

[lawfin]

IS there any sense when this project might begin....or is it solidly in proposal territory with no short-term chance of begining construction?

[Steely Dan]

it's solidly in the proposal stage. The first hurdle would to be gain approval from the city, and that could still be years away, if it even happens at all, given the way Evanston has been dragging it's feet on this one.

Then, if the the project is fortunate enough to gain approval, there would be the issue of preselling enough units to secure financing, and in this economy..................

Short answer: this one is quite far from construction.

[Thymant]

Well I currently live in Evanston and I have traveled to downtown many times, so I feel even though this is a larger tower for the are the traffic will still be reasonable. No of the other highrises that have been built in the passed three years have seemed to cause great traffic or any other problems but have contributed to creating a very modern cultrual downtown.

By the way I will try to get some photo's of the area this weekend if I can.

[Steely Dan]

more info from evanstonnow.com.


Tower backers drop city aid request
Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009, at 10:31 am
Bill Smith

In the revised plan for the 708 Church St. development that Evanston aldermen will debate next Tuesday developers have dropped a request for financial aid from the city to rehabilitate the landmarked Hahn Building next door.

Last year the developers had sought up to $3 million from downtown tax increment finance district funds for the Hahn restoration, but that concept is gone from the latest plan.

read full article: http://www.evanstonnow.com/story/new...est?page=0%2C0