HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #16081  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2019, 3:03 PM
skysoar skysoar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 84
I agree with you concerning Loop heights being over- scrutinized. Also with land ultimately becoming less available in the Loop, I would think building taller would be the only feasible option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16082  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2019, 4:35 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
It is a mystery. Still don't get it. I think they might have gotten some push back potentially above a certain height, but from my point of view the developer just simply left 150-250 units on the table (maybe 20-25 stories). Just to not go through what would probably be a fairly run-of-the-mill entitlement process (don't see a groundswell of controoversy likely for a project of this nature in this location).

Just a weird calculus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
Why do you think there would of been push back even at a taller height as this location ?.....i never could understand the rationale behind push back on height especially the most ridiculous claim that shouldn't even been warranted by any alderman about blocking someones views. The loop of all places in the city shouldn't even have have any inkling of problems for going tall... the fact that alderman Reilly keeps playing this game even in places like the loop is reason why alderman in this city are so corrupted.
Guys, my post on this got deleted, probably because some trolls who can't behave showed up, but the answer is obvious:

What massive financial burden is introduced whenever you secure a zoning change even if its through a "run of the mill entitlement process" in an area where such a project "couldn't possibly be contraversial"?

Since we apparently aren't allowed to mention it, let's just say it includes three letters: A, R, and O...

Of course I continue to not be believed about this, but have you noticed that there have been virtually no residential rezoning requests now for like almost two years? The only ones that show up are already in the planning process or extremely high end projects like Tribune... It's not a cooincidence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16083  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2019, 5:40 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
Why do you think there would of been push back even at a taller height as this location ?.....i never could understand the rationale behind push back on height especially the most ridiculous claim that shouldn't even been warranted by any alderman about blocking someones views. The loop of all places in the city shouldn't even have have any inkling of problems for going tall... the fact that alderman Reilly keeps playing this game even in places like the loop is reason why alderman in this city are so corrupted.
You’re opening question would appear to be asked and answered. I was not taking that position, but was stating the reality there would likely be some pushback/tougher negotiation for entitlements above a certain size (which again might not really come into play until it got up to ~45-50 stories).
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16084  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2019, 5:56 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,530
I do see a future where some smaller, non-landmarked type buildings on the Loop's eastern side and demolished for taller thin towers.. maybe next boom
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16085  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 1:11 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
very interesting.

though the article says that the other 2 buildings in the PD have veto power over any potential redevelopment of the site, and with one of those buildings being the god-awful 200 N dearborn condo tower, my guess is that the west-facing units there will fight tooth and nail to stop any tall development on the site from ever being built.
Any building on that site would be as tall or taller than them anyway as of right per current zoning.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16086  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 3:00 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,047
CBRE closes sale of 52,000-SF retail asset in Chicago

another article

"Located at the corner of Clark and Lake in Chicago’s Loop, the property includes an open-air courtyard and comprises 20,755 square feet on the ground floor, 18,991 square feet on the second floor and a 12,288-square-foot fitness center on the third floor. The land is 20,755 square feet.

The property is zoned PD 375, with the underlying zoning being DC-16, the highest zoning Chicago offers and the only zoning with unlimited FAR.

With its location in the CBD and immediate access to amenities such as the Riverwalk, State Street retail corridor, theater district and an abundance of restaurants, the property could be a strong candidate for development into a mixed-use tower."

So underlying zoning is DC-16 ...but there is veto power from neighbor property if they dont approve of the proposed building here?...Kinda crazy..give the developer this incredible zoning opportunity to build tall but then have this group squash it from whatever reason they feel necessary?....smh

https://www.rejournals.com/cbre-clos...icago-20191115
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16087  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 3:10 PM
bhawk66 bhawk66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by maru2501 View Post
I do see a future where some smaller, non-landmarked type buildings on the Loop's eastern side and demolished for taller thin towers.. maybe next boom

Not sure we'll see ANY new tall towers in the loop this cycle or the next. Many current office building owners in the Loop have already/recently voiced their concerns about current AND upcoming vacancies due mainly to the office developments on the near west side. Combined with a growing trend of companies desiring more unified (large floor plates) spaces. Should be interesting to see how the '20's pan out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16088  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 4:18 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,047
^ be nice to see the loop core trend even more residential...i feel like there has be some momentum lost in that trend in the last 10 years or since legacy was built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16089  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 5:27 PM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 372
I would LOVE to see more Loop residential. I don't care if it's all luxury and I could never afford it, but it would certainly help transform the area into a full-fledge neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16090  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 5:35 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
^ be nice to see the loop core trend even more residential...i feel like there has be some momentum lost in that trend in the last 10 years or since legacy was built.
This is exactly how that happens. Every cycle creates new supply of new class A buildings. This naturally leaves behind a trail of now C or D class buildings in it's wake that are now vulnerable to adaptive reuse. This is gradually changing the nature of the East Loop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhawk66 View Post
Not sure we'll see ANY new tall towers in the loop this cycle or the next. Many current office building owners in the Loop have already/recently voiced their concerns about current AND upcoming vacancies due mainly to the office developments on the near west side. Combined with a growing trend of companies desiring more unified (large floor plates) spaces. Should be interesting to see how the '20's pan out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16091  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 6:48 PM
MorganChi's Avatar
MorganChi MorganChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 117
I remember a couple years ago there was going to be a planned tower there I don’t remember the height but I think it was definitely in the 900 range. I’m excited to hear this news. I can def see a 800-900 footer there. Imagine the Thompson building get demolish and that property available for two or one super tall. That would be crazy man


Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
CBRE closes sale of 52,000-SF retail asset in Chicago

another article

"Located at the corner of Clark and Lake in Chicago’s Loop, the property includes an open-air courtyard and comprises 20,755 square feet on the ground floor, 18,991 square feet on the second floor and a 12,288-square-foot fitness center on the third floor. The land is 20,755 square feet.

The property is zoned PD 375, with the underlying zoning being DC-16, the highest zoning Chicago offers and the only zoning with unlimited FAR.

With its location in the CBD and immediate access to amenities such as the Riverwalk, State Street retail corridor, theater district and an abundance of restaurants, the property could be a strong candidate for development into a mixed-use tower."

So underlying zoning is DC-16 ...but there is veto power from neighbor property if they dont approve of the proposed building here?...Kinda crazy..give the developer this incredible zoning opportunity to build tall but then have this group squash it from whatever reason they feel necessary?....smh

https://www.rejournals.com/cbre-clos...icago-20191115
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16092  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 7:22 PM
Freefall Freefall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganChi View Post
I remember a couple years ago there was going to be a planned tower there I don’t remember the height but I think it was definitely in the 900 range. I’m excited to hear this news. I can def see a 800-900 footer there. Imagine the Thompson building get demolish and that property available for two or one super tall. That would be crazy man
Quote:
"...it will appeal to myriad uses—including office, retail, food and beverage."
Hmm... think they forgot a couple other uses
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16093  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 8:05 PM
dan ryan dan ryan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 39
I don't think the Thompson Center will get torn down which makes me very happy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16094  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 8:59 PM
PittsburghPA PittsburghPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Loop, Chicago
Posts: 728
Nov 16

Fulton East



167 N Green





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16095  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 10:56 PM
MorganChi's Avatar
MorganChi MorganChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan ryan View Post
I don't think the Thompson Center will get torn down which makes me very happy.


Maybe but I don’t see the state putting any funds towards fixing it that’s why I believe it will be gone or bought by someone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16096  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 8:53 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,025
50 E Randolph

November 15, 2019













More renderings:
http://www.roszak.com/#/60-east-randolph/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16097  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 10:46 PM
KWillChicago's Avatar
KWillChicago KWillChicago is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 806
^What a frickin waste of a prime 60 floor location.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16098  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 1:15 AM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWillChicago View Post
^What a frickin waste of a prime 60 floor location.
I know...my sentiments exactly...that view could been epic and filled that gap perfectly in that skyline shot with a 60 plus story tower...smh...so damn conservative
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16099  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 1:27 AM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 372
Love it or hate it, this would have been a great spot of a better looking OBP tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16100  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 2:43 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 12,349
Bentham Condos

Nov 12



Nov 13





__________________
Harry C --- Chicago rep for SkyRise Cities ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:56 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.