CHICAGO | 108 North State (Block 37) - Page 175

the urban politician · #**3481** Posted **Jun 9, 2013, 5:33 PM**

I was disappointed not to hear any news about a hotel, but good news nonetheless:

How Block 37 is returning from the dead

Baronvonellis · #**3482** Posted **Jun 9, 2013, 5:39 PM**

Maybe being across the street from Macys, which is a giant indoor mall itself doesn't help either. I agree that it should have much more advertising on the outside to be able to compete.

wierdaaron · #**3483** Posted **Jun 9, 2013, 8:53 PM**

The ICON theater anchoring Roosevelt Collection has been able to survive in a dead shopping center just fine, but I think if there was a food court there it would have crashed and burned. So I can understand a movie theater in Block 37, but a food court might be a little too optimistic.

I can't think of any multi-screen movie theaters the likes of AMC that have gone into buildings that weren't designed to house them. I wonder if they will have to compromise on the size of the screens due to the height of the fourth floor.

When they cut the hotel/highrise out of the plan for B37 did they design the foundation to give them the option to add one later? If this plan pays off, maybe they can still build upwards.

chicubs111 · #**3484** Posted **Jun 9, 2013, 8:56 PM**

^ The hotel/highrise was never cut out of the plan...it is still in the future overall plan for the project

tjp · #**3485** Posted **Jun 9, 2013, 9:36 PM**

I think any highrise component would be residential, not a hotel.

And weirdaaron--the 4th floor, I believe, was originally built to accommodate theaters.

wierdaaron · #**3486** Posted **Jun 9, 2013, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjp

And weirdaaron--the 4th floor, I believe, was originally built to accommodate theaters.

I was starting to think I remembered hearing that, but I've heard so many half-cocked ideas about this building I've started to willfully forget things. Blues museum?

the urban politician · #**3487** Posted **Jun 10, 2013, 12:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjp

I think any highrise component would be residential, not a hotel.

^ On what basis are you saying this? When CIM sought air rights/zoning rights several months ago (forgot what it was exactly) it was to build a future hotel. Have you heard something different?

SamInTheLoop · #**3488** Posted **Jun 10, 2013, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I was starting to think I remembered hearing that, but I've heard so many half-cocked ideas about this building I've started to willfully forget things. Blues museum?

The Blues museum was a goofy (not in general, but goofy to think such should be located at block 37) idea being 'pitched' by two real estate brokers who have nothing to do with block 37.......

SamInTheLoop · #**3489** Posted **Jun 10, 2013, 1:07 PM**

Although I don't know what CIM Group is cooking up for the high-rise, I do think that the residential + hotel route is still definitely the way to go.......the Loop proper needs more of both of these uses, from a business/market cycle perspective it seems to make a lot of sense, why not 1 of each? I was disappointed several years back when it looked like the high-rise was going to Golub (and their plan was for two residential towers - well, not sure if technically two....more like side by side connected towers, as there's only one elevator core for the entire high-rise component....then again, this really makes it one wide tower but I digress...)

At any rate, fantastic news on the soon-to-be tenants. The only one I'm not thrilled about is the gym......It's clearly not the most synergistic of tenant types, but oh well - at least we're finally getting the movie theater, the food court (i'm assuming the type of food court you see in Water Tower, not the ubiquitous suburban mall food court straight out of the 1980s), and the first destination or semi-destination restaurant - still need a couple more restaurants, and let's now get the shop space leased up!

SamInTheLoop · #**3490** Posted **Jul 24, 2013, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ On what basis are you saying this? When CIM sought air rights/zoning rights several months ago (forgot what it was exactly) it was to build a future hotel. Have you heard something different?

I don't know the legal language of the pd rights as far as flexibility, but I do know it's currently zoned for 1 hotel tower and 1 residential tower (I believe it's technically one wide tower because it's one shared core along the randolph side). My guess is that there is flexibility at least as far as switching to 2 residential towers - again, just an educated guess (it could also be it's possible to switch to 2 hotels, but that's a much less certain guess on my part). My strong preference again would be for 1 residential tower and 1 hotel....

SamInTheLoop · #**3491** Posted **Jul 24, 2013, 3:44 PM**

In other (minor) block 37 news, the supports for the new signage (that CIM Group needed to obtain PD amendments for) scheme are currently being installed........let's hope they also have some new names to put on the signs!! Hopefully the late-stage negotiations for theaters, food, gym, restaurant leases revealed by Crain's 45 days ago are now signed!

Still not thrilled about a gym use for half of the 4th floor......(would much rather the theater occupied the entire floor with about 12-14 screens, rather than the 7-8 that I think we're getting).......I just never saw a gym as a synergistic anchor, which is what is most desirable from an urban activation perspective, but rather mostly just a rent-paying tenant (whose members will create a little cross traffic and awareness of the overall center's offerings)....

VivaLFuego · #**3492** Posted **Jul 24, 2013, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Although I don't know what CIM Group is cooking up for the high-rise, I do think that the residential + hotel route is still definitely the way to go.......the Loop proper needs more of both of these uses, from a business/market cycle perspective it seems to make a lot of sense, why not 1 of each? I was disappointed several years back when it looked like the high-rise was going to Golub (and their plan was for two residential towers - well, not sure if technically two....more like side by side connected towers, as there's only one elevator core for the entire high-rise component....then again, this really makes it one wide tower but I digress...)

I assume it's a moot point by now based on elevator capacity, but wouldn't office space be the highest, best, most obvious use for vertical floorspace on a site directly connected to the two busiest, highest frequency rail routes in the city? Transit as an economic model is all about the generation of trips going to the same place at the same time, and commercial density (ideally including both retail and employment to spread the demand by time of day and day of week) is far and away the most productive trip generator. A large hotel is certainly fine here if that's all the market could bear, but residential would be such a waste of this location that the city would be better off waiting until the market could do it right.

SamInTheLoop · #**3493** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 4:34 PM**

^ First, I think it's definitely a moot point because of the current core - it's definitely smaller and for residential/hotel as opposed to what would be needed for high traffic office.

Second, I very much get you point on highest and best use from a transit/micro location standpoint. Definitely valid way to look at it. However, there is also how the market would view and value the highest and best use, simply from a level of interest from bidders/number of bidders (as far as what use they would slate for it), price offered per sq ft, etc in terms of this piece of land. It's clear to me that the market clearly thinks residential or residential and hotel is a better use for the high-rise component of the property than office (the demand for top tier office space - both existing building and proposed new construction - is much lower in the central loop/east loop (i suppose this would be around the eastern edge of the central loop) than in the W Loop and the special 'view from, view of' high profile, riverside locations. There is enough competition from landlords (Top-tier supply) for large A credit tenants in the N/S Wacker Corridor (including within 1-2 blocks of N/S Wacker), and those special view parcels - think 300 N LaSalle, River Point, 150 N Riverside, Wolf Point, etc), to more than satisfy all the demand that's out there - and more. But, there's loads of current potential from a demand perspective for development of residential and hotel in the central/eastern loop (of which block 37 is a very prime location) right now.....

I definitely don't think that markets are always right however........clearly those economists who worship efficient markets as a reality got their intellectual clocks cleaned throughout the last economic cycel or two, and those who have stuck with it despite all the daily contrary evidence will be judged as fools by history....

BVictor1 · #**3494** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

The ICON theater anchoring Roosevelt Collection has been able to survive in a dead shopping center just fine, but I think if there was a food court there it would have crashed and burned. So I can understand a movie theater in Block 37, but a food court might be a little too optimistic.

I can't think of any multi-screen movie theaters the likes of AMC that have gone into buildings that weren't designed to house them. I wonder if they will have to compromise on the size of the screens due to the height of the fourth floor.

When they cut the hotel/highrise out of the plan for B37 did they design the foundation to give them the option to add one later? If this plan pays off, maybe they can still build upwards.

The ICON theatre survived because they made the parking free to draw patrons.

SamInTheLoop · #**3495** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 5:35 PM**

^ Played a role in drawing traffic, but that theater filled such an enormous shortfall (actually didn't completely fill by any means - we still have a large gap between supply and demand downtown/near south side - and don't get me started on the south side at large) in screen supply that theater would have done well regardless.

To be quite honest, I'm looking forward to prices being jacked up considerably for parking at RC - the market augers for this, and the prices for movie tickets should be increased somewhat too. This was always slated to be more of a higher-end offer (in terms of complete product and service standards), and I've noticed some undesirable slippage over time (that I've spoken with the manager about, and will continue to btw)....

Rizzo · #**3496** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The ICON theatre survived because they made the parking free to draw patrons.

I think ICON survived because it's the best. Everybody I know of talks of a great experience at this theater. I go there whenever I can despite that I have two AMCs just a short walk from where I live and probably close to a a couple others on the train.

urbanpln · #**3497** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Played a role in drawing traffic, but that theater filled such an enormous shortfall (actually didn't completely fill by any means - we still have a large gap between supply and demand downtown/near south side - and don't get me started on the south side at large) in screen supply that theater would have done well regardless.

To be quite honest, I'm looking forward to prices being jacked up considerably for parking at RC - the market augers for this, and the prices for movie tickets should be increased somewhat too. I've noticed some undesirable slippage over time (that I've spoken with the manager about, and will continue to btw)....

I totally agree with your first point. The second point I also agree except that the undesirable element will continue to come regardless of price hikes on tickets. Higher parking fees will impact both desirable and undesirable elements.

J_M_Tungsten · #**3498** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 6:55 PM**

I would stop going if I had to pay for parking at RC. As Hayward mentioned, there are other theaters closer the Icon that would be cheaper to go to without needing to park. Honestly the only reason I would ever go to RC is for the free movie parking; I mean, what else is there?

emathias · #**3499** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I would stop going if I had to pay for parking at RC. As Hayward mentioned, there are other theaters closer the Icon that would be cheaper to go to without needing to park. Honestly the only reason I would ever go to RC is for the free movie parking; I mean, what else is there?

Afaik, it's the only theatre downtown where you pick your seats. That can be nice. Plus their bar area has the most addictive bacon popcorn.

tintinex · #**3500** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

Afaik, it's the only theatre downtown where you pick your seats. That can be nice. Plus their bar area has the most addictive bacon popcorn.

Those are exactly the 2 reasons why I pass the 600 North Michigan and River East theaters on my way to the ICON coming from the north side to watch a movie. Long gone are the days of me sitting down in a line for over an hour to get good seats...and Bacon popcorn...yum