CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS

[Hoodrat]

The second to last (Union Tower) is just horrible.

[Chicago Shawn]

The article mentioned that Hines is exploring "reducing the height of the tower, and pushing the deadline back to 2012."

The hell with that, this site is way too prime for a short crap box; granted it probably would still be better than anything Fifield would throw up a few blocks west, but still. I would rather have this extremely prominate site remain vacant for the next boom, than take it away for a VE'ed POS.

The only positive scenario I see here is, Chicago gets the 2016 nod in October, and by then perhaps the recession has bottomed out and stabalized. This tower then goes forward next year with the remaining prospective tennants stacked on top of a new hotel, which would lock in finnancing after the Olympics announcement. One can dream, right?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The article mentioned that Hines is exploring "reducing the height of the tower, and pushing the deadline back to 2012."

The hell with that, this site is way too prime for a short crap box; granted it probably would still be better than anything Fifield would throw up a few blocks west, but still. I would rather have this extremely prominate site remain vacant for the next boom, than take it away for a VE'ed POS.

The only positive scenario I see here is, Chicago gets the 2016 nod in October, and by then perhaps the recession has bottomed out and stabalized. This tower then goes forward next year with the remaining prospective tennants stacked on top of a new hotel, which would lock in finnancing after the Olympics announcement. One can dream, right?

^ Couldn't agree more. A stub on that site would be an architectural travesty. One would hope that it would be designed like BCBS, to have the potential for expansion

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by jstush04

^ wow, thanks for the thorough answering of that question, spyguy. i can see why steely speaks of fifield with such disdain. how could someone be so boring? I guess "slow and steady finishes the race", but dammit, take some pride in your work!

Frankly I don't see what is so bad about most of those buildings. Someone has to build medium-sized office blocks in order to keep a diversity of rents in the future so all the small firms don't get pushed out once all the old 15 - 20 story buildings are demolished or turned to lofts.

And you guys should leave 550 West Adams out of this, that is one phenomenally cool building. Its absolutely gorgeous how it uses glass mullions as a decorative element. No one ever plays with glass like that and I hope this building stays standing for a long time to come. I wish Chicago had more medium sized and very interesting buildings like 550...

550 West Jackson's not bad either, it may be a little busy for my taste, but its interesting none-the-less.

Also, these short little towers are good because they are taking up spaces that used to be parking lots faster than big buildings could since like 3 of these equal one 444 W. Lake... I don't know how you can call these relatively high quality buildings "crap boxes"...

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The article mentioned that Hines is exploring "reducing the height of the tower, and pushing the deadline back to 2012."

The hell with that, this site is way too prime for a short crap box; granted it probably would still be better than anything Fifield would throw up a few blocks west, but still. I would rather have this extremely prominate site remain vacant for the next boom, than take it away for a VE'ed POS.

The only positive scenario I see here is, Chicago gets the 2016 nod in October, and by then perhaps the recession has bottomed out and stabalized. This tower then goes forward next year with the remaining prospective tennants stacked on top of a new hotel, which would lock in finnancing after the Olympics announcement. One can dream, right?

Exactly. My main concern is that whatever tower ends up on that site is going to be a visual terminus to the Main Branch view corridor looking west. That fact alone warrants a tower at least as aesthetically valuable and ambitious as the current design of River Point (and I would argue that River Point doesn't make the cut, but I am willing to accept that Hines would produce a high-quality-enough inception of the design that would be passable). So any reduction is height/quality/visual caliber would be a no-go for me.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I don't know how you can call these relatively high quality buildings "crap boxes"...

If they were in Naperville, they would not be crap-boxes.
If they were on LaSalle or Michigan Avenue, they would be crap-boxes.
Where do you put the West Loop, closer to LaSalle or closer to Naperville?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I don't care where it is, they are not "crap boxes" in my mind. I don't know why a building like 550 Adams is a crap box. That building is great. It is a simple and efficient box, yet its facade is absolutely great, the fins of glass create a phenomenal effect in the sun from up close refracting light everywhere while it has a unique shimmer effect from a distance which is a unique and refreshing texture. Also it fills out the lot right to the street which most office buildings built these days don't do. This gives it the same dense feel and quality that a lot of older buildings in the area have.

I don't see one reason that makes this building anything less than a "good" building. I personally think its one of the better buildings built recently in Chicago. Give me one reason to call it a "crap box" and no making some weird statement about whether its closer to naperville of LaSalle St. is not a legitimate reason.

How can you resist this:


archidose.blogspot.com


flckr unknown

[Dr. Taco]

^ one or two of them are good, but gosh, nowhere, every building is practically the same height, same floorspace, but different colored sprinkles on top. i appreciate the buildings for what they are, but they are stubby and boring and NOT a good fit for the riverside.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Someone has to build medium-sized office blocks in order to keep a diversity of rents in the future so all the small firms don't get pushed out once all the old 15 - 20 story buildings are demolished or turned to lofts.

These buildings aren't for small firms though. They're designed for one or two companies like USG or Quaker Oats. I'm not sure why smaller firms in the future would find it cheaper to operate in relatively new West Loop buildings as opposed to the older buildings in the East Loop.

And you guys should leave 550 West Adams out of this...550 West Jackson's not bad either, it may be a little busy for my taste, but its interesting none-the-less.

The 550's are alright, but still nothing special. I guess I don't like that they're all practically squat boxes lined up in a row. Plus you have to take into consideration that Fifield has built a lot of crappy apartment buildings nearby. I don't think anybody wants to see something like the CTA Center right next to the river.

Originally Posted by museumparktom

Also, these short little towers are good because they are taking up spaces that used to be parking lots faster than big buildings could since like 3 of these equal one 444 W. Lake

I think that's my biggest problem with them. Except for maybe the north side of the main branch, the CBD is only growing West. It seems like we're being shortsighted and underutilizing these prime locations by building 20 story glass boxes. And it'd be great if these buildings and River Point added hotel/residential components so this area wouldn't feel so dead at night.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by jstush04

^ one or two of them are good, but gosh, nowhere, every building is practically the same height, same floorspace, but different colored sprinkles on top. i appreciate the buildings for what they are, but they are stubby and boring and NOT a good fit for the riverside.

Well since when was I saying we should build one next to the river? I was just arguing that you can hardly call Fifield's office blocks "crap boxes", especially not 550 adams, which, unsurprisingly is a Destephano design.

Originally Posted by spyguy

These buildings aren't for small firms though. They're designed for one or two companies like USG or Quaker Oats. I'm not sure why smaller firms in the future would find it cheaper to operate in relatively new West Loop buildings as opposed to the older buildings in the East Loop.

I'm not talking about the present, obviously old space is cheaper than new space. My point is that, as the old buildings all get destroyed, renovated, or facadectomized, we will have a smaller amount of cheap office space in smaller buildings for small firms. You can already see the problem in the Central loop and along Wacker where small firms used to be able to subsist but were driven out as rows of 444 lake sized office towers were built.

This is all part of the urban cycle, the West loop was like 40% parking lots 10 years ago, you can't just go straight from that to 50 story buildings if you want a healthy neighborhood. I'm saying that, in 30 years, when these buildings are more run down, they will be havens for smaller businesses until someone comes along, just like with that small building by Sears, and renovates them again. Like it or not, a healthy city requires a new supply of buildings of all sizes and types, including 20 story glass boxes downtown.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...ws.pl?id=33950

Jones Lang files lien over commission
By Thomas A. Corfman, May 06, 2009

A dispute over a $2.8-million commission payment between Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. and a venture led by developer Hines Interests L.P. is casting more doubt about a proposed riverfront skyscraper that has already lost one anchor tenant.

Jones Lang says it hasn’t been paid for brokering a deal that made law firm Baker & McKenzie a co-anchor tenant of a building Hines proposed for a site along the west bank of the Chicago River at Lake Street, according to a lien the Chicago-based real estate firm filed against the property.

“The lien is a sign that they (Jones Lang) have given up hope,” said David Montross, CEO of Chicago-based tenant representation firm UGL Equis, which isn’t involved in the project, called River Point. “And I think it’s clear that it can’t happen in this environment. You can’t get it financed.”

...Now, the lien raises new questions about whether even a smaller project of 750,000 to 800,000 square feet could be financed.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by spyguy

I think that's my biggest problem with them. Except for maybe the north side of the main branch, the CBD is only growing West. It seems like we're being shortsighted and underutilizing these prime locations by building 20 story glass boxes. And it'd be great if these buildings and River Point added hotel/residential components so this area wouldn't feel so dead at night.

They all look the same because they are all basically built to the maximum allowable dimensions as-of-right under the zoning classification. Incidentally, one of the major goals and "achievements" of the Central Area Plan was upzoning this area of the West Loop precisely to encourage this level of office density with the idea that this would be the expansion of the office core, albeit at somewhat lower built density and with somewhat more mixed uses. Until recently, most of the land west of about Clinton (I think... going from memory) was zoned for FAR 5.0, whereas now it's mostly for 10.0 and 7.0 all the way to the expressway. I suppose the area could be upzoned yet again to the full FAR 16.0 allowed in the loop proper, but it's important to realize that the existing conditions today already represent a 'victory' from the perspective of Chicago land use planners, to the extent they have any power/influence.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I don't care where it is, they are not "crap boxes" in my mind. I don't know why a building like 550 Adams is a crap box. That building is great. It is a simple and efficient box, yet its facade is absolutely great, the fins of glass create a phenomenal effect in the sun from up close refracting light everywhere while it has a unique shimmer effect from a distance which is a unique and refreshing texture. Also it fills out the lot right to the street which most office buildings built these days don't do. This gives it the same dense feel and quality that a lot of older buildings in the area have.

I don't see one reason that makes this building anything less than a "good" building. I personally think its one of the better buildings built recently in Chicago. Give me one reason to call it a "crap box" and no making some weird statement about whether its closer to naperville of LaSalle St. is not a legitimate reason.

How can you resist this:


archidose.blogspot.com


flckr unknown

In terms of height, they certainly are crap boxes. There's only a certain amount of space left for development.

YOu can't keep building these little shoe box buildings in the West Loop, take it out to Rosemont.

No, it really doesn't give the same dense feeling. It feels dense walking down LaSalle, not DesPlaines.

I can resist this because it absolutely does nothing for me. No boner, no happiness, nothing...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

In terms of height, they certainly are crap boxes. There's only a certain amount of space left for development.

YOu can't keep building these little shoe box buildings in the West Loop, take it out to Rosemont.

You talk as if, somehow, the CBD will eventually "fill up" and hit a wall, causing some kind of development crisis.

Chicago is a HUGE, HUGE city. If West Loop Gate fills up with shorter buildings, then office development will spread south of the Eisenhower, or to one of many remaining vacant lots west of the Kennedy, or to Wicker Park, or along the west bank of the North Branch (in the area around the Tribune plant).

I've always entertained the idea of developing a second office district around the United Center. This would create a unique neighborhood within Chicago - sort of Buckhead-ish - and add ridership to the underused Pink Line as commuters transfer from Metra or the Red/Blue/Brown lines.

The fact is, I honestly don't care what the height of these buildings are, because Chicago can accommodate office growth in many places, and this single-minded obsession on downtown actually is holding the office sector back from improving other areas of the city. Smaller cities need to focus on downtown because they struggle to maintain the critical mass downtown for lively streets and a pleasant, safe perception of their CBD. Chicago, on the other hand, has the ability to direct office development anywhere within a "greater downtown area" that stretches up to North Avenue, down to Cermak, and west to Western.

Now, for the 444 West Lake site - I believe it deserves a tall building because of its prominent location along the river. But don't try to apple the same rules to random sites along Desplaines and Jefferson.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You
I've always entertained the idea of developing a second office district around the United Center. This would create a unique neighborhood within Chicago - sort of Buckhead-ish - and add ridership to the underused Pink Line as commuters transfer from Metra or the Red/Blue/Brown lines.

OMG...I hate this idea. The fact that Chicago is so centralized is what makes it unique and prosperous. I don't want a downtown St. Louis/Clayton, Dallas/Galleria, Houston/Post Oak, Atlanta/Buckhead, general LA feel here.

[the urban politician]

^ Or a midtown/downtown (NYC) feel neither, right?

There's nothing wrong with 2 office districts, IMO, as long as they are both in the city and both served by mass transit.

[nomarandlee]

I don't think downtown Brooklyn or Canary Wharf have substantially lessened NYC and London. It is OK to have an alternative business district as long as it is built around a viable transit hub. I don't think the Pink Line and UC would provide a good enough transit option but Jefferson Park could potentially.

[ardecila]

I don't know, I think United Center works pretty well. It's a short ride from downtown on either the Blue Line for LaSalle Street/Union Station folks or the Pink Line for Ogilvie folks, making it have (almost) the same regional connectivity as downtown itself.

Jefferson Park only connects the Blue Line to the Metra UP-NW Line, and it's a long way from downtown. By locating there, you're essentially shutting out people from the western, southwest, and south suburbs. By all means, it should be a dense node with tall residential, but I don't know about an office center - Veterans Center, which is already there, is having trouble filling up with tenants, and it's small potatoes even compared to the so-called "West Loop crap boxes".

As far as New York goes, the better comparison would be Long Island City (or Jersey City) where new office districts have sprouted up in neighborhoods with cheap land. These are mostly back-office functions which need to be close to Manhattan but don't justify Manhattan real estate prices - just like the "crap boxes" in the West Loop.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You talk as if, somehow, the CBD will eventually "fill up" and hit a wall, causing some kind of development crisis.

Chicago is a HUGE, HUGE city. If West Loop Gate fills up with shorter buildings, then office development will spread south of the Eisenhower, or to one of many remaining vacant lots west of the Kennedy, or to Wicker Park, or along the west bank of the North Branch (in the area around the Tribune plant).

I've always entertained the idea of developing a second office district around the United Center. This would create a unique neighborhood within Chicago - sort of Buckhead-ish - and add ridership to the underused Pink Line as commuters transfer from Metra or the Red/Blue/Brown lines.

The fact is, I honestly don't care what the height of these buildings are, because Chicago can accommodate office growth in many places, and this single-minded obsession on downtown actually is holding the office sector back from improving other areas of the city. Smaller cities need to focus on downtown because they struggle to maintain the critical mass downtown for lively streets and a pleasant, safe perception of their CBD. Chicago, on the other hand, has the ability to direct office development anywhere within a "greater downtown area" that stretches up to North Avenue, down to Cermak, and west to Western.

Now, for the 444 West Lake site - I believe it deserves a tall building because of its prominent location along the river. But don't try to apple the same rules to random sites along Desplaines and Jefferson.

Uh, yeah, the CBD will "eventually" fill up. It's not an infinate amount of space. And I said nothing about a development crisis.

Yes, Chicago is a huge city, 227.2 sq mi to be precise, but only a fraction of that accounts for the central area and has high density zoning. THere's a chance that there will be expansion of office space south of the Ike, but on the east side of the river, the majority of development will be residential and west of the river, transportation kind of sucks.

Wicker Park, you must be delusional. There won't be any office development there. It's hard enough getting new residential density in that area. The west bank of the north branch also doesn't seem likely unless Goose Island is ever rezoned from a PMD and the redl line stub subway is ever actually built.

For all the sites you mention, public transportation would need to be vastly improved and whole areas would need to be rezoned, which isn't a small task. I don't see this happening around the UC because of all the low density residential. It's possible, but not probable.

If you have these views about development, maybe you should be so inclined to attend some of the meetings on development and city issues that tend to occur. There are so many people on here who are all talk and full of ideas, but lack action. I don't have a wife/kids/significant other but I work all day and I've managed to make it to 4 or 5 of the central area meetings.

Yeah, I will apply the same ideas and concepts to random sites along Desplaines and Jefferson. It's 4 blocks from the Sears Tower. Cracker box buildings in that area defeats the purpose of it being a part of the central area, especially after the city has stated that they want downtown to expand in that region. Would you put a trailer park in Kenilworth? I don't think so...

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I don't think downtown Brooklyn or Canary Wharf have substantially lessened NYC and London. It is OK to have an alternative business district as long as it is built around a viable transit hub. I don't think the Pink Line and UC would provide a good enough transit option but Jefferson Park could potentially.

Don't ever expect anything in Jeff Park. Too many goddamn nimbys and Levar is a prick who has fought 3-story apartment buildings.