CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[Stained]

That 1.7 million square feet at Tribune could easily be made into a new landmark. That is a great opportunity.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Yeah, this base is absolutely awful - awful. Not sure what people's expectations were for the base of this one.....I think it's exactly as it appeared in renderings - or at least exactly how I expected it to appear - and that's very, very bad. I mean, how clumsy and awkward is this thing, because of the base?

All that being said, I think that the tower itself here is just fantastic. The tower work here in my view is a step-up for SCB......very nice work.

Yet....



......Shame about that base.......

Originally Posted by Jibba

This one is OK to me, but if those windows are dead-eyed (well, they're going to be), that's a bummer. The scoring on the precast panels looks ridiculous, though; for the prices they're charging for these condos, one would think they could get them to simulate actual masonry joints a little better (see the 'joints' that are inches away from the facade openings).

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I hate the base. Just hate it. Imagine the entire street lined with shit like this. It'd be like reverse alchemy. Or turning wine into water. Ugh. SCB might have been a good transition from the architectural disasters that befell River North in the '90s, but, IMO, in the 2010s with an expanded field that includes players like bKL, P and W, Goettsch-- even incipient high-rise architects like John Ronan and Krueck and Section-- SCB is barely a step up from Antunovich, primarily because of the deadening podiums they keep insisting on. And, you know what: I really think I'd take a ho-hum-- even ugly-- Antunovich tower with solid street presence over something like this.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

^^ Oh damn, imagine if the Tribune Tower redevelopment uses the remain 1.7 million square feet of land. They better not mess this up.

In not as interesting news, here's a rendering of the 12 story high rise for Jefferson Park. That certainly is a lot of retail space, let's hope most of it doesn't go vacant


http://nadignewspapers.com/2015/10/0...07ac-272210017

I'm assuming the several stories of cyan glass represents parking...?

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I'm assuming the several stories of cyan glass represents parking...?

265 of them, for 96 residents and retail. That's why the article mentioned how many of the people at the meeting wanted less parking.

[HowardL]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

Tribune Tower is for sale
Robert Channick-Contact Reporter
Chicago Tribune

Before having been made redundant in one of the regular lay-offs at Trib, I worked at the Tower and it is just a spectacular building. I was in Tribune Interactive, down in the lower levels where the printing presses used to be.

Catwalks, zute suits and cantilevered glass cube conference rooms. It was one of the best office spaces in the city. From my desk, if I tilted my head back, I was looking straight up three stories. It was like walking into a modernist cathedral every morning.

The layout of the Tower itself is klugey as hell but such a fantastic building. I still hold very fond memories of working in the Tower. I hope that the people in charge of expansion are able to maintain the integrity of this iconic bitch.

[rlw777]

The 36-story, neo-Gothic building houses the Chicago Tribune and other tenants. The building has 737,000 square feet, but the entire site is zoned for up to 2.4 million square feet

from Chicago Sun Times

[b0soleil]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Then go to the meeting, speak up, and drown out hers and other NIMBY voices...

It's like these meeting times are designed to keep reasonable, hardworking people from attending.

On my calendar. Will be there!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

265 of them, for 96 residents and retail. That's why the article mentioned how many of the people at the meeting wanted less parking.

J. F. C. There should be an outright ban on these types of developments, and you should have to submit to a rigorous zoning process for an exception to be made.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

J. F. C. There should be an outright ban on these types of developments, and you should have to submit to a rigorous zoning process for an exception to be made.

The apparently excess parking is allegedly to help leasing the mostly vacant office building next door. Not sure that fully justifies it, but it's not outright unreasonable on its face. An office building in that location is going to need a decent amount of parking to be viable, I'd guess transit could realistically hope for a 15-20% commute share, tops.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The apparently excess parking is allegedly to help leasing the mostly vacant office building next door. Not sure that fully justifies it, but it's not outright unreasonable on its face. An office building in that location is going to need a decent amount of parking to be viable, I'd guess transit could realistically hope for a 15-20% commute share, tops.

Not sure if you're able to answer these questions, but I'd then ask: When was the office building constructed? Or when was the structure converted to offices? Was mass transit a more popular mode of transportation at the time? If not, why wasn't something like parking a consideration when deciding on that location for offices? Because now, IMO, the solution to that problem is unacceptable.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by b0soleil

It's like these meeting times are designed to keep reasonable, hardworking people from attending.

Which generally is not an impediment to aldermanic attendance.

Also, is this the church that is - or was - falling down, killing pedestrians? If so, that also doesn't do a whole lot to further encourage attendance....

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Not sure if you're able to answer these questions, but I'd then ask: When was the office building constructed? Or when was the structure converted to offices? Was mass transit a more popular mode of transportation at the time? If not, why wasn't something like parking a consideration when deciding on that location for offices? Because now, IMO, the solution to that problem is unacceptable.

The office building was built like 15 years ago. I'm not sure what your point is. Parking is a huge factor in office leasing outside of downtown.

[HomrQT]

Yesterday - Oak Park @ State & Lake

20151008_152039 by HomrQT, on Flickr

20151008_154957 by HomrQT, on Flickr

[intrepidDesign]

This is kinda OT but with the news about the Trib tower and everything else in the area recently, Lowes, Optima II, etc, got me thinking about the area in general. Does anyone know who owns the lot directly to the south of the NBC tower?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The office building was built like 15 years ago. I'm not sure what your point is. Parking is a huge factor in office leasing outside of downtown.

Viva was saying that the office building has an issue of attracting tenants because of the lack of parking. If it was built 15 years ago (when transportation patterns were largely as they are now, i.e., super reliant on automobiles), it seems like that was a pretty big oversight. Now this proposed residential building is correcting that mistake by cramming a couple hundred extra spots into its base, creating a massive eyesore in the process. Had parking been taken into consideration when the office was built, we wouldn't have to deal with the uneven distribution and unsightly proposal before us.

[munchymunch]

More in depth look at the Tribune sale.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...009-story.html

This part really caught my eye.

Just west of Tribune Tower is a much more modern tower with the name 'Trump' emblazoned on it in controversially large letters. Completed in 2009, the gleaming 96-story hotel and condominium development was built on the site of the former Chicago Sun-Times building, a far-from-historic structure that was unceremoniously demolished.

Murphy said the Tribune site has the potential to eclipse Trump's development.

"The advantage that the site of the Tribune has is the fact that it's truly Michigan Avenue retail," Murphy said. "Trump Tower doesn't have the same access that Tribune has. So arguably, from a pure fundamental real estate perspective, it is a superior site when it comes to mixed use."

rchannick@tribpub.com

Oxford capital, and Murphy capital have confirmed interest in the site.

[jc5680]

Halsted and Lake

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

More in depth look at the Tribune sale.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...009-story.html

This part really caught my eye.



Oxford capital, and Murphy capital have confirmed interest in the site.

The zoning allowed I'm sure doesn't currently include bonuses. Tribune Tower i don't believe has been designated a landmark. If it's turned into a landmark, then they could get tax-L credits for renovation and adaptation. Also, if the same group develops the land to the east, perhaps they could do adapt-a-landmark bonus.

[Koernerstr32]

^As per a Tribune article, the Trbune building is designated a landmark:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...008-story.html

Named a Chicago landmark in 1989, Tribune Tower itself would likely remain a centerpiece of any redevelopment.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by jc5680

Halsted and Lake

Looks great so far (shame that ugly affordable housing building partially blocks it). I also saw some marketing that referred to this building as "The Parker" but I'm not sure if they're really sticking with the name.

---
Another potential highrise for Evanston:

http://evanstonnow.com/story/real-es...nned-for-ridge

Assisted living high-rise planned for Ridge
By Bill Smith on October 9, 2015 - 6:16am
Developers of the old National School Towel Service property at 1815 Ridge Ave. in Evanston unveiled plans Thursday evening to construct on the site a 12-story building with up to 150-assisted living units for senior citizens.