CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Then neighborhoods will adamantly oppose any new buildings. There's a reason parking requirements got added to zoning codes in the first place.

Is it still 1970?

Times change, you know.. Oodles of buildings are already getting built with little parking. With the community involved

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

T.
If you wish, and have the money, you can run a car elevator to the 83rd floor and put a dozen cars in your living room. Technically it would be coming out of existing floor area.

That's the way a lot of them do it along with keeping them down the street in storage areas. You would not believe some of the classic Ferrari's I have seen downtown(Pebble Beach winners).

We better cut this topic short or it will all get deleted. I think we all agree that parking areas in buildings need some better planning. But you should not drive high tax paying residents out of the area fixing the problem.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You now get to decide what people can and can't collect and store on their own private property?

Sure. I can't raise cattle in my yard in just about any city in America. Nothing could be more typical.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

But what about TODs? Even without the mandatory minimum, these developments are still subject to a community approval process via the Alderman that can [and, unfortunately, do] reinstate parking when the “community” really wants it. Removing the minimum parking requirement doesn’t eliminate the approval process, but does lower the regulatory burden so that parking can be reduced in instances where the community doesn’t mind.

As much as we like to hate on the re-zoning process in Chicago, I think it really does work pretty well as a negotiation. Untying both the community’s and developers’ hands so that more items are up for debate should improve the process.

I think it would just make it more contentious and create planning fatigue. If you think community meetings are unproductive now, just wait until there’s one every week. The only people who will show up are folks with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do. Those people don’t tend to like change.

Most developments should be as-of-right and not be up for negotiation with the community unless they diverge drastically from traditional forms of development in the city. If I want to build a 6-flat with no parking on a block with other vintage 6-flats, that shouldn’t require a “planning process”.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Then neighborhoods will adamantly oppose any new buildings. There's a reason parking requirements got added to zoning codes in the first place.

And it’s dated practice. The zoning code must modernize.

[230Roberto]

Was just looking at the past cancelled towers in Chicago.
https://gyazo.com/040b57426f38452028c83b8a8aef942c
Does this screenshot depress anyone else?

[left of center]

Waterview still stings, since it was actually getting off the ground and got canceled halfway through.

W-A would've been nice, but it seemed like a long shot from the start.

The Spire is a mixed bag for me. I love the design and the height, but not the location. It would've dwarfed the rest of the skyline from the lake, and thrown the aesthetics of the skyline out of balance. If moved further inland (west of Michigan Ave) it would've looked a lot better.

[230Roberto]

Originally Posted by left of center

Waterview still stings, since it was actually getting off the ground and got canceled halfway through.

W-A would've been nice, but it seemed like a long shot from the start.

The Spire is a mixed bag for me. I love the design and the height, but not the location. It would've dwarfed the rest of the skyline from the lake, and thrown the aesthetics of the skyline out of balance. If moved further inland (west of Michigan Ave) it would've looked a lot better.

This skyline would looked 1000 times more different if the boom last 2 more years. Yes I got to admit the spire site would be a great location for maybe a 1000 footer or something it would like great along the river, but this site is Chicago's only chance (as of anytime soon) for a 1500+ ft tower. The Thompson Center would be a great site for a 1200-1400 (around that area)

I've only been around the "skyscraper game" for 1 year and a half now, but I can't imagine having a beautiful tower being constructed and the design getting a huge downgrade mid construcion. Don't get my wrong I still like One Eleven I think it fits with its surroundings but waterview tower was just a beauty.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Then neighborhoods will adamantly oppose any new buildings. There's a reason parking requirements got added to zoning codes in the first place.

The authority to approve or not approve new buildings should not lie with the neighborhoods.

[KWillChicago]

The Waldorf still seems like one of those designs that could still happen. Being so slender and simple textured it could really fit in any area of the city without becoming a confusing eyesore, which would get less complaints from the "neighbors". Personally I think it would fit the south loop well. Say near the old post office?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

The authority to approve or not approve new buildings should not lie with the neighborhoods.

While I agree, and I’m as anti-NIMBY as they come, I do think that the community should have some say over zoning in their wards.

That doesn’t mean they should be able to approve and reject every single project, of course. But we do live in a democracy after all

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

While I agree, and I’m as anti-NIMBY as they come, I do think that the community should have some say over zoning in their wards.

Not when the neighborhood is downtown, i.e., the West Loop. In those cases, less control and say by the neighborhood is probably for the best.

[230Roberto]

Does anyone know who owns the property at 834 S Michigan Ave? ( the site of the cancelled park tower)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

Does anyone know who owns the property at 834 S Michigan Ave? ( the site of the cancelled park tower)

Michigan 830 LLC, which is registered to the address of Scali & Associates in Crystal Lake. Renaissant Development Group of Geneva was supposed to be the developer. Not sure if that's them or not. Iviva Group was also an initial investor, and there was a court case with them and Renaissant a handful of years ago so who knows..

[Mr Downtown]

^I'm pretty sure that's actually Matthew Pritzker. He bought the YWCA parcel in 2008, just after the Park Michigan plan died.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^I'm pretty sure that's actually Matthew Pritzker. He bought the YWCA parcel in 2008, just after the Park Michigan plan died.

No idea, but here's the court case from 2013:
http://illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders...112679_R23.pdf

[left of center]

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

This skyline would looked 1000 times more different if the boom last 2 more years. Yes I got to admit the spire site would be a great location for maybe a 1000 footer or something it would like great along the river, but this site is Chicago's only chance (as of anytime soon) for a 1500+ ft tower. The Thompson Center would be a great site for a 1200-1400 (around that area)

Don't forget about the Tribune tower addition. The proposed height is in that ballpark, and its still very early in the process of design, let alone approval. We could see a height bump by then.

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

I've only been around the "skyscraper game" for 1 year and a half now, but I can't imagine having a beautiful tower being constructed and the design getting a huge downgrade mid construcion. Don't get my wrong I still like One Eleven I think it fits with its surroundings but waterview tower was just a beauty.

Waterview was an odd case, and one unlikely to be repeated. It was built entirely on spec by the engineering firm that designed it, as opposed to a seasoned developer who knows how to build and sell housing units. Then the worst financial crisis in a century rolled around and construction halted. Condo sales evaporated, Shangri-La pulled out of its contract for the hotel portion, and all bank lending dried up denying any potential lifeline for the project. As a result, it was an abandoned concrete hulk along the river canyon for 3 years.

None of the residential towers going up now are anywhere near this situation. They all have bank financing, and either have met the necessary presale requirements or are rentals.

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

Was just looking at the past cancelled towers in Chicago.
https://gyazo.com/040b57426f38452028c83b8a8aef942c
Does this screenshot depress anyone else?

It does. Along with many other canceled gems.

Here's the skyline the way I would have wanted it.

[maru2501]

I would take 7 South Dearborn over the sky needle, but that's great

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

It does. Along with many other canceled gems.

Here's the skyline the way I would have wanted it.

The Miglin Beitler Skyneedle is the biggest "never happened" for this city ever in my opinion. Such a wonderful building. Great work.