CHICAGO | Coast at Lakeshore East | 464 FT / 141 M | 46 FLOORS | COM

torsodog · #1 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 5:06 AM**

Work has begun on a 49-story Brininstool, Kerwin & Lynch design at 345 E Wacker Dr. in Lakeshore East (BKL seems to be referring to it as the "Coast at Lakeshore East" while Magellan is sticking with Building A for now). Glass with inset balconies, it looks a lot like its western neighbor, the Swissotel. Can't help but feel a little sorry for the folks living on the north side of the Tides as it's going to obstruct some great views. Seems like its going to be pretty comparable height-wise, too. As a Lakeshore East resident myself who doesn't live in the Tides though, I'm excited to see this project rise.

All images and info from BKL directly @ http://www.bklarch.com/housing/coast-lakeshore-east

Rizzo · #2 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 5:20 AM**

It begins!

tommaso · #3 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 7:28 AM**

Damn! Chicago's on the rise again! I'm very pleased with the design and the impact it'll have on the neighborhood!

SamInTheLoop · #4 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 1:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by torsodog

(BKL seems to be referring to it as the "Coast at Lakeshore East" while Magellen is sticking with Building A for now).

In yesterday's Chicago Bisnow newsletter, the reporter spoke with Magellan execs at a large John Buck Co industry event last week, and apparently they too are now referring to the building as the Coast....

brian.odonnell20 · #5 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 2:11 PM**

whats the height on this one (feet) ??

i_am_hydrogen · #6 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 2:21 PM**

It's 425 feet.

Nowhereman1280 · #7 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 2:36 PM**

Isn't this thing already quite under-construction? Judging by the pictures posted in the rundown thread there are already caisson rigs assembled and large piles of what look like caisson drill filings all over the site.

Rizzo · #8 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 3:53 PM**

Yeah foundation work has been well underway.

NYC2ATX · #9 Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 10:33 PM**

I REALLY like the design of this building. It's simplistic and sleek but still unique. It adds a little variety to the Lake Shore East condo blandness (excluding Aqua of course). I'm excited to see it rise

DZH22 · #10 Posted **Jun 22, 2011, 6:35 PM**

49 floors and only 425'? Floors less than 9' apart (8.6735') in this day an age? Are we sure this information is accurate? As someone who has followed skyscraper construction for over a decade, my gut instinct tells me that the odds of a 425' building with 49 floors being built in the United States hovers right around 0%.....

photoLith · #11 Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 3:42 PM**

Austin has a few new towers that will most likely begin construction this year, Chicago is getting a couple new scrapers. Could we be seeing the beginning of a new boom finally?

the urban politician · #12 Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 3:46 PM**

So does that little driveway to the west of this new building (between it and Swisshotel) actually become an official street now, or will it remain a service driveway?

I had thought that with the construction of Aqua, a new street was going to be created that connected Columbus with Wacker via an L shaped configuration

Nowhereman1280 · #13 Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

Austin has a few new towers that will most likely begin construction this year, Chicago is getting a couple new scrapers. Could we be seeing the beginning of a new boom finally?

From what I've seen the boom in Austin hardly even paused.

In any case Chicago is definitely back in boom mode now. It won't match up to what we just saw, but the demand for housing in Chicago's popular neighborhoods and downtown continues to rise while we are about to enter a 2-3 period of absolutely no new deliveries. That is a formula for the rapid construction of new housing.

car2004 · #14 Posted **Aug 20, 2012, 2:10 PM**

Interesting, my friend. I always thought of Austin (only about 70 miles North of me) as the new Chicago. I believe Austin, Texas will look the way (though, however, perhaps not with towers such as the Willis or Hancock) present day Chicago is in just 15-25 years tops. However, the Austin boom has slowed but will be picking up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

From what I've seen the boom in Austin hardly even paused.

In any case Chicago is definitely back in boom mode now. It won't match up to what we just saw, but the demand for housing in Chicago's popular neighborhoods and downtown continues to rise while we are about to enter a 2-3 period of absolutely no new deliveries. That is a formula for the rapid construction of new housing.

photoLith · #15 Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 4:03 PM**

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the revival of the spire... One can dream.

jcchii · #16 Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 7:26 PM**

not quite a boom by chicago standards, but there's a pulse

chicubs111 · #17 Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 7:41 PM**

more like a boom of 400ft and a few 500fters..unfortunly no biggies on horizon until next year

harryc · #18 Posted **Jul 8, 2011, 11:31 PM**

Checking the hole

Close to the wall

A hole in a hole with a column in it.

Holding the rebar while the concrete sets.

tommaso · #19 Posted **Jul 9, 2011, 8:25 AM**

It's a shame that this thing can get financing, but the Spire can't. It's easy to get upset when you look at the location of the Spire and its potential impact on the skyline and compare it to 345 E Wacker which is an elegant post-modern tower, but won't have nearly the same impact the Spire would. I hope that the Spire will eventually find financing and that 345 E Wacker will only become an addition to the skyline, but not a precursor to what we should expect from the Chicago skyline in terms of height or cutting edge design. 425 feet is nice, but in this location, it really should be rising 600+. Although we didn't rave about Trump's antenna, we can all agree that the height Trump added to the skyline was remarkable and had a profound impact on how we think about land use in DTChicago. It really brought us back to thinking that 1000+ footers should be more of a common sight in Chicago.

Alliance · #20 Posted **Jul 9, 2011, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommaso

It's a shame that this thing can get financing, but the Spire can't. It's easy to get upset when you look at the location of the Spire and its potential impact on the skyline and compare it to 345 E Wacker which is an elegant post-modern tower, but won't have nearly the same impact the Spire would. I hope that the Spire will eventually find financing and that 345 E Wacker will only become an addition to the skyline, but not a precursor to what we should expect from the Chicago skyline in terms of height or cutting edge design. 425 feet is nice, but in this location, it really should be rising 600+. Although we didn't rave about Trump's antenna, we can all agree that the height Trump added to the skyline was remarkable and had a profound impact on how we think about land use in DTChicago. It really brought us back to thinking that 1000+ footers should be more of a common sight in Chicago.

What type of absurd statements are these?

Might it be different, perhaps, to finance a 500 M dollar building vs a 2 B dollar building?

345 is not a post-modern tower, its distinctly (and pretty hardcore) modernist. And speaking of cutting edge design, its glass balconies, aluminum framing, and fritted glass actually potentially puts 345 in the top 5-10% of buildings built during the boom, with no banal precast accessories or strange grating to be seen. Between the cities I've lived in, I can only think of a few buildings with fritted glass, and I can only think of one in Chicago (BCBS).

And whats this bull about 600+ feet? There is a plan for this development, and not every tower built should be a monstrosity. Its also about the same height or taller than most other towers current U/C or proposed.

Trump has an (ugly) spire, not an antenna.

No one in Chicago ever forgot that supertalls existed or could be built. Especially since Chicago still has the only supertall built in the US in almost 40 years (see above). However supertalls can be giant albatrosses (look at Sears). I really feel the boom has poisoned peoples minds. Buildings don't grow on trees and they cant be willed to be taller. They're large, long term investments that involve multiple industries working together. "Booms" happen every 20-30 years, not everytime something is built. This is a different phase of development, about building out more than building up. I think we'll still see some over 500 ft buildings coming years, but they wont be a daily occurrence (and we can remember how really special they are. Frankly, considering this decade is already more productive than the majority of the 90's in Chicago, I am relatively pleased that Chicago is where it is, especially with such a nice potential design in this building (among others). Almost everyone on this forum wants development to continue/increase, but building 5, 200 foot towers can be better for a city's fabric than a supertall, and a better investment as well.