CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

slideshow presentation of the 460 W. Chicago (cleveland & Chicago) proposed tower here

http://www.connectnearnorth.org/uplo...n_9_28_15d.pdf

meh but such a huge improvement for the area, don't really care nobody will notice it in a few years

Its not a masterpiece, but I really like the way it meets the ground with the cantilever and recessed glass wall to widen the sidewalk. Very nice touch. If it had been an arcade, the columns would create dead space like a handful of River North towers, but the cantilever solves that problem.

[123fakestreet]

...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

As much as I like the tower, I can already see the cars in the rendering and the podium is certainly not small. This is not a good sign for the amount of cars this project will have.

Agreed. The traffic in this area is already abysmal, the city really needs to work with developers to cap the parking in this area or everything will grind to a halt with new development. It's all right on top of the Red Line, too, which makes it even more pointless... but developers think they can only rent TOD units to hipster 25-year-olds in Wicker Park and Lakeview. The assumption is that anybody older or wealthier is going to want to drive everywhere.

From the PD application, there are 407 units proposed here and 244 residential parking spaces, so that's already 0.6:1. Not ideal, but it is reduced. However, there are an additional 70 parking spaces for the retail component.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by 123fakestreet

If foreigners buy units and pay chicago taxes are barely use any city services, isn't that a good thing?

Yes, and if many units remain empty for the majority of the year, it also means less cars for Tina Feldstein to contend with as she attempts to drive from Prairie Avenue to the north end of Grant Park in the middle of the Chicago Triathlon.

It's a win-win!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Agreed. The traffic in this area is already abysmal, the city really needs to work with developers to cap the parking in this area or everything will grind to a halt with new development. It's all right on top of the Red Line, too, which makes it even more pointless... but developers think they can only rent TOD units to hipster 25-year-olds in Wicker Park and Lakeview. The assumption is that anybody older or wealthier is going to want to drive everywhere.

From the PD application, there are 407 units proposed here and 244 residential parking spaces, so that's already 0.6:1. Not ideal, but it is reduced. However, there are an additional 70 parking spaces for the retail component.

I gave up on this area a long time ago. Maybe around SoNo? What was its parking ratio again? IIRC, it was too high. Really, anything was too high consider there was a fracking subterranean Red Line stop right there and already a bajillion parking spots for all the shit retail. And then New City? Ugh. It just was clear early on that this neighborhood was doomed and the City had no intention of stepping in.

Really, what a disaster-- a poster-child for anti-TOD development and what the City should go to all lengths to outlaw.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Yes, and if many units remain empty for the majority of the year, it also means less cars for Tina Feldstein to contend with as she attempts to drive from Prairie Avenue to the north end of Grant Park in the middle of the Chicago Triathlon.

That is less than a 20 min walk on what was a beautiful day. People like that are the root cause of the issue in the first place

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Agreed. The traffic in this area is already abysmal, the city really needs to work with developers to cap the parking in this area or everything will grind to a halt with new development. It's all right on top of the Red Line, too, which makes it even more pointless... but developers think they can only rent TOD units to hipster 25-year-olds in Wicker Park and Lakeview. The assumption is that anybody older or wealthier is going to want to drive everywhere.

TOD only means having dense development around mass transit access, so that people have options other than driving and don't have to drive. It doesn't mean they can't own a car.
It looks to me to be a self limiting problem. Who is going to get in their car for most trips and then go sit in a traffic jam when they can walk / take mass transit and get there faster? With all the retail right there, how much do they really need to drive?
But if the cars are used only rarely, to get to locations not served by mass transit, is it really a big deal?

[Mr Downtown]

^Exactly.

Originally Posted by ardecila

The assumption is that anybody older or wealthier is going to want to drive everywhere.

It's realistic to anticipate that people who can afford them will have autos for occasional use when transit (and, for that matter, carsharing) is inconvenient. I'm not sure how that gets twisted in young urbanists' minds into "we must forbid all parking spaces to keep them from driving their BMWs every morning to their Loop offices."

[wierdaaron]

I went and mapped the highrises under construction again (with help from page 1 of this thread; thanks y'all).


Mapping Chicago's 21 Highrises Under Construction Right Now [Curbed]

Compared to this time last year, when there were only 14 active construction sites for 200+ footers, the development seems to have spread away from the loop and is now around the fringes of downtown. Chicago and Cermak, probably the upper and lower boundaries of the "downtown area", are seeing a lot more activity than we've seen in a long time.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by 123fakestreet

That newsreader makes the point that there will be international buyers for these units that may not live in the city full time and states that is a negative. But, is this really a negative? If foreigners buy units and pay chicago taxes are barely use any city services, isn't that a good thing?

as long as they are not getting the 0.001% tax rates they give the foreign buyers in new york.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by aaron38

TOD only means having dense development around mass transit access, so that people have options other than driving and don't have to drive. It doesn't mean they can't own a car.
It looks to me to be a self limiting problem. Who is going to get in their car for most trips and then go sit in a traffic jam when they can walk / take mass transit and get there faster? With all the retail right there, how much do they really need to drive?
But if the cars are used only rarely, to get to locations not served by mass transit, is it really a big deal?

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Exactly.


It's realistic to anticipate that people who can afford them will have autos for occasional use when transit (and, for that matter, carsharing) is inconvenient. I'm not sure how that gets twisted in young urbanists' minds into "we must forbid all parking spaces to keep them from driving their BMWs every morning to their Loop offices."

But there is a qualitative cultural factor, too. If you create ample opportunities for people to store their cars, both at home and at whatever destination they're headed to, you're going to induce the choice of that mode. There is a culture of driving here partly because it's been made so easy to do so, at the expense of the infrastructure and urban environment. You can't have hegemony of the automobile in a city that wasn't purpose-built for it. The problems are numerous and constant, as we all know.

[aaron38]

Traffic caused by intra-city trips can be addressed multiple ways. I'm referring to car trips out of the city. If you tell people that once they move into the city they can't ever easily leave, how many will choose not to move? How much will that keep people in the burbs where we have no choice but to drive?
Car sharing addresses some of the auto storage issues, but I found renting a car for a weekend trip to be incredibly inconvenient.
And without a car, how would I get to the dozens of places in the Midwest I need to go, that aren't in the city limits?

Like I said, if the numerous, short, repetitive intra-city trips are addressed, then the Saturday car trip out to a McHenry county wedding shouldn't be a big deal.

[SamInTheLoop]

Point goes to Jibba. He's exactly right, as weak policy is a culprit here. Fairly aggressive parking maximums at least in true TOD locations need to be codified. 'Consumers' need more of a nudge certainly in this area..........a reasonable change in the calculus of transportation mode decision-making for folks living and shopping in an area such as this (just an example of almost any such location within the greater core, and also solid TOD nodes), is overwhelmingly not going to result in choosing to live or shop in Schaumburg instead.......rather, for the most part, it's going to be shift toward propensity to take transit, walk, etc........a fairly solid nudge which is so badly needed.......

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Traffic caused by intra-city trips can be addressed multiple ways. I'm referring to car trips out of the city. If you tell people that once they move into the city they can't ever easily leave, how many will choose not to move? How much will that keep people in the burbs where we have no choice but to drive?
Car sharing addresses some of the auto storage issues, but I found renting a car for a weekend trip to be incredibly inconvenient.
And without a car, how would I get to the dozens of places in the Midwest I need to go, that aren't in the city limits?

Like I said, if the numerous, short, repetitive intra-city trips are addressed, then the Saturday car trip out to a McHenry county wedding shouldn't be a big deal.

Eh, this seems a fairly limited need, particularly with suburban companies all flooding into the downtown office market. And there's a good solution for this need, anyhow: build large parking lots next to public transit in the farthest reaches outside the city center.

For example, I knew someone who worked in Hoffman Estates but lived in Logan Square - she elected to take the blue line to Rosemont every morning, where she left her car in a large parking lot for the rest of the trip.

As for day trips to the suburbs, my family got rid of our car when I was a teenager, but we never had problems getting to holidays in the suburbs, either through Zipcar or Metra station pick ups from relatives. This was also ten years ago, when car sharing inventory was less abundant.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Exactly.


It's realistic to anticipate that people who can afford them will have autos for occasional use when transit (and, for that matter, carsharing) is inconvenient. I'm not sure how that gets twisted in young urbanists' minds into "we must forbid all parking spaces to keep them from driving their BMWs every morning to their Loop offices."

Let's break this down... I don't disagree with the notion that homebuyers want parking, or even with the notion that developers can provide it.

But in this specific corner of the city, the auto traffic is already vastly more than what the infrastructure can handle. The congestion reduces the quality of life for those who have to drive, hurts business, and increases pollution levels. It also slows down buses, so even those who choose not to drive are impacted. Plus, the neighborhood is extremely built-up; it's not like a suburban location where you can just widen the roads.

Given the existing conditions in the area, I think planners should work to reduce parking in new developments to a bare minimum. Residential developments, yes, but especially retail.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Agreed. The traffic in this area is already abysmal, the city really needs to work with developers to cap the parking in this area or everything will grind to a halt with new development. It's all right on top of the Red Line, too, which makes it even more pointless... but developers think they can only rent TOD units to hipster 25-year-olds in Wicker Park and Lakeview. The assumption is that anybody older or wealthier is going to want to drive everywhere.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Exactly.

It's realistic to anticipate that people who can afford them will have autos for occasional use when transit (and, for that matter, carsharing) is inconvenient. I'm not sure how that gets twisted in young urbanists' minds into "we must forbid all parking spaces to keep them from driving their BMWs every morning to their Loop offices."

One job I had in about 2002 timeframe where I worked across the street from the Sears Tower, the CTO lived in the Gold Coast and commuted via Porsche. And the head of software project management commuted from Lake Shore Drive and Division in a Mercedes. They were mostly exceptions, but that sort of pattern does happen. And, to be honest, I know it did make their commutes faster because they've give me rides home sometimes since I also lived in the Gold Coast at the time.

[maru2501]

at least driving around north and clybourn comes with its own punishment

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Its not a masterpiece, but I really like the way it meets the ground with the cantilever and recessed glass wall to widen the sidewalk. Very nice touch. If it had been an arcade, the columns would create dead space like a handful of River North towers, but the cantilever solves that problem.

I want to find it in my heart to at least try to appreciate this proposal, but I just can't (ok, ok - I haven't tried all that hard!). It was something of an interesting idea by VOA here.....sort of throwback to the 1970s......this seems like something out of Manhattan, circa 1977 uptown residential tower. It's the worst of the 70s though. The tower could and should have at least come to the ground on the Chicago side, especially to take advantage of the vertical emphasis of the facade. But that podium juts out to the sidewalk so awkwardly. And this thing was shortened by a good amount as well (why?) which also clashes with the vertically expressed elements......it's just a mess, does not work at all and a complete miss for VOA here. Frankly I'm more excited for that very banal, ultra-boring project just getting started now I believe directly south across Chicago (that Onni-developed, PH-designed tower). And that's not saying much at all!!

A couple other things I wanted to mention on this one (460 W. Chicago): Am I correct that it went to Plan Commission, was approved, but then went back again for amendments? (I believe this is what happpened) If so, why? Was it in this amendment process that it was downsized? I wonder what was going on behind the scenes there..........the developer here is Alison Davis (Davis Group), which could be important for any number of reasons. This is the guy that got kicked off managing some of the city's pension fund real estate investments, fyi (not just a run-of-the-mill change-of-manager type of thing.......so, in other words, a great candidate to be involved in developing real estate in the city of Chicago! Also, and finally, (and Near North Resident is going to go gaga over this one): 10% of the units in this tower are for CHA residents, which I found interesting. (was this a city land sale for this project?).........also, additional equivalent of 20% of units for affordable housing to be located offsite........

[SamInTheLoop]

So, I think Spyguy recently posted a new rendering of this one. By the way, is the architect still SCB?.......I wanna say it is......the developer is Keith Giles

At any rate, Crain's just posted a blurb about it. Just a couple numbers: It is now proposed at 25 stories, and 320 units......(sorry if these details were already posted by Spyguy or someone else)


Nice density......

[Mr Downtown]

^And the soil testing truck is there today.