CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by XIII

Because it would clash with the Hancock center?

If it is well designed, it would fit in just fine.

I don't think anywhere in and around downtown would look "bad" with a supertall.

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by XIII

Because it would clash with the Hancock center?

If it is well designed, it would fit in just fine.

The site we're talking about isn't on the Magnificent Mile like the Hancock.

The site is on the boundary with River North, which is decidedly low-rise.

I think supertalls look better when they are adjacent to other very tall buildings.

Not adjacent to a sea of low rise buildings.

[Steely Dan]

^ do you realize that there is a 500' condo tower immediately to the south of the site in question?

i'm not arguing for or against a supertall there, but the context is hardly "a sea of lowrise buildings".

[joeg1985]

^^ A 752 foot tall building was just proposed barely two blocks east of this site. I would say this area is decidedly moving in the direction of highrise. As is the general trend for most of River North.

^ Thank you Steely. Hello. Like a full 1/4 of the highrise construction we document on this forum is located in River North. If not more.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

The site we're talking about isn't on the Magnificent Mile like the Hancock.

The site is on the boundary with River North, which is decidedly low-rise.

I think supertalls look better when they are adjacent to other very tall buildings.

Not adjacent to a sea of low rise buildings.

Up until a few months ago, I lived right near this site for nearly 8 years. Saying it's decidedly low rise tells me you don't spend much time in the area or aren't opening your eyes. There are some low rises there, but there's more high rise in a half mile radius. There is also a pretty tall high rise right across the street from this site and another just to the west. Not to mention about 3 or 4 new 30+ story buildings that have gone up in the last few years within a 2 block radius.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

The site we're talking about isn't on the Magnificent Mile like the Hancock.

The site is on the boundary with River North, which is decidedly low-rise.

I think supertalls look better when they are adjacent to other very tall buildings.

Not adjacent to a sea of low rise buildings.

While River North has a fair number of vintage buildings of 6 stories and less, it also has quite a few towers over 30 stories tall. When I moved into River North 12 years ago, a friend of mine described it as Chicago's mid-rise district, and it's only gotten taller since then.

[Rocket49]

Although I'm not keen for a supertall at Chicago & State, I did say originally that something about 700 feet tall would be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

However, the idea of a supertall at the sight is neat if it attracts other high rises over time.

To me, the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Center looked a bit out of place in photos taken in the 1970's as they were the only very tall buildings in their neighborhoods.

But perhaps a supertall on the fringes of River North would help spur on the construction of other very tall buildings. Along Chicago Avenue, perhaps.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

But perhaps a supertall on the fringes of River North would help spur on the construction of other very tall buildings. Along Chicago Avenue, perhaps.

Define "Very tall"? There's already high rises all around here. Seems like you aren't in this area currently very much.

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Define "Very tall"? There's already high rises all around here. Seems like you aren't in this area currently very much.

To me, "very tall" is between 700 and 999 feet in height. That is, the magenta color on the Chicago's building boom list.

"tall" = 500 to 699 feet

Anything shorter than 500 feet is low-rise. haha.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

To me, "very tall" is between 700 and 999 feet in height. That is, the magenta color on the Chicago's building boom list.

"tall" = 500 to 699 feet

Anything shorter than 500 feet is low-rise. haha.

Might consider wanting to come back to reality . Nobody in the world would be ridiculous enough to have your standards.


By the way, there are 21 buildings within a 4 block radius of this site that are at least 500 feet tall, and 5 of those are over 700 feet including the 844 foot Park Tower and 725 foot Olympia Center both of which are just 2 or 3 streets over on Chicago Ave. Then there's the nearly 700 foot tall Waldorf Astoria just up the street a few blocks or the nearly 650 foot tall 55 E Erie that's just 2 streets south of the site. Even if your standard is anything over 500 feet, then you're still wrong. There's a number of tall towers, over 500 feet, either right near this site or not far.

[killaviews]

Tower crane permit issued for 811 W Agatite - Montrose and Clarendon high-rise. This can be moved to under construction on page 1.

https://buildingupchicago.com/2017/0...and-clarendon/

The boom has reached Uptown!

[ardecila]

Hopefully the Holy Name plan includes some public space. It would be great to have some kind of pocket park there. Ideally you could do a pedestrian street through the block ala Wicker Park Connection (or City Center in DC) but I don't think the project will include the western third of the block; there's an alley running through there.

[chicubs111]

It would be nice if the Holy Name lot does produce a significant sized single structure (say over 800 ft...be great its over 1000 ft but that may be asking too much)... River north could use an "anchor tower similar how Hancock anchors gold coast...trump anchors north Michigan...Aon (east loop)... these signature towers all spur development surrounding it.... It would be even better if a plaza or public park was incorporated into the development...I feel Chicago tends to miss out and under perform on so many big opportunities when it comes to prime spots (such as block 37)..the developers\architects tend to be way to conservative at times.

[marothisu]

Guys, there are multiple 700+ foot towers within 2 streets of this site. You realize that right? Park Tower at nearly 850 feet is a 5 minute walk away. This isn't even mentioning that new proposal that's 700+ feet nearby either.

[the urban politician]

I hope they maintain the State St canyon that has evolved so wonderfully of late.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Lol yes, it is totally silly to think of putting a supertall litterally on top of a train station two blocks off Michigan Avenue on the main E-W thouroughfare on the north side of downtown.

Hint: it doesn't matter how tall the nearby buildings are if the site is prime enough and endowed with the correct infrastructure.

That said, most Chicago developers, JDL included, don't have the balls to develop this site to it's full potential. Wayyyy too much land in one bite so we will end up with another Block 37 or, at best, a mini River South type development.

Clearly this should be banned:


tumblr


som.com

Can we just automatically ban anyone who suggests such things on here from now on? It seems like the absurd "this area shouldn't have a super tall building because the neighboring buildings are shorter" comment surfaces once a month.

[BVictor1]

Seemingly a bit more information on the Holy Name parking lot project:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...700-plus-units

April 05, 2017
Holy Name residential project could include 700-plus units

By ALBY GALLUN

A residential development with more than 700 apartments and condominiums could rise from a parking lot across from Holy Name Cathedral in River North, the developer negotiating to buy the property said today.

Jim Letchinger, president of Chicago-based JDL Development, confirmed that he is in talks with the Archdiocese of Chicago to acquire the site at the southwest corner of State Street and Chicago Avenue. Though his plans for the parcel are far from firm, he outlined his vision for the project and explained his motivation for pursuing it.

"It's at the crossroads of the great neighborhoods of Chicago. It ties North Michigan Avenue, River North and the Gold Coast together," Letchinger said. "The scale of the site gives us the opportunity to create something that is spectacular for the City of Chicago."

That something would include a mix of apartments and condos—JDL hasn't settled on how many of each type—in multiple buildings on the property, plus around 100,000-square-feet of retail space, he said. JDL has hired Chicago-based Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture to design the project and plans to bring in another Chicago architecture firm to work on it as well.

Anticipating questions about where all those residents in his development will park their cars, Letchinger said JDL plans to create parking underground and away from sidewalks. Many downtown developers have faced criticism for building towers on big, lifeless parking podiums.

"The street will be lined with active uses," Letchinger said.

[Bombardier]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

That said, most Chicago developers, JDL included, don't have the balls to develop this site to it's full potential. Wayyyy too much land in one bite so we will end up with another Block 37 or, at best, a mini River South type development.

Don't be so sure about that... word on the street is that JDL has been working on an 80 story confidential project for several months with HPA. When I saw this in the news, I figured this is probably the one.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Can we just automatically ban anyone who suggests such things on here from now on? It seems like the absurd "this area shouldn't have a super tall building because the neighboring buildings are shorter" comment surfaces once a month.

I don't know who you are responding to, but with what I was writing it has nothing to do with whether I think there should be a super tall there or not. It was responding to the asinine and ridiculous comments from another poster claiming that the area is "low rise" which means bringing up how many tall buildings are in the area to prove just how ridiculous their comments are. Clearly the site should be a tall high rise. If it's a super tall then great, if it's not but it's something like a 50 story building, then it could be worse. If it's anything under 40 stories then it's mostly a waste. If this was directed at me, then you clearly misinterpreted it or you didn't read back far enough to see what a few of us were responding to. Even so, suggesting to ban someone from a forum because of what you describe is rather extreme.














Now, in other news - new construction permits were issued (foundation only) for 1326 S Michigan Avenue. That is the 47 story, 500 unit building here:

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/8/8/1...-lands-partner

[pilsenarch]

^I'm constantly impressed how hard it is for so many to perceive *sarcasm* on this thread...