CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7 - Page 150

BVictor1 · #**2981** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 6:42 AM**

Perhaps these are a bit clearer...

NOTES...

-585’
-60’ wide tower
-279 hotel rooms in old Essex when renovation complete
-155 parking spaces to 187 spaces
-.3 to .4 parking ratio increase
-floor 7 will be public access
-floor 9-12 are partial residential floors
-floor 14-55 residential
-green roof on old Essex Inn
-old Essex they want to landmark
-X-bracing expressed in the glass
-10,000 sq foot floor plate for tower
-60’ x 60’ space that will be (glass screened) winter garden
-glass screening on west,east, and north facade (bottom panels) will be operable to open during good weather (similar to 25th floor amenity level at 340 on the Park)
-Power Construction
-ground floor restaurant
-open in fall of 2018?
-5-6% 3-bedroom
-parking will be about 20’ back from the east facade
-boulevard facade screened with active spaces
-LEED Silver

Tom Servo · #**2982** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 9:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattshoe

^Disappointing

I disagree. Hartshorne Plunkard tends to do fairly decent work. Well above average and sometimes even good. I expect this to turn out well, despite the changes. And is converting the open air portion of this tower into a 'winter garden' really even a bad thing? It's cold the majority of the year here; this seems more practical (which is always a good thing in architecture) than the previous, open air design.

Finally a tower in the south loop that isn't total shit.

SamInTheLoop · #**2983** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 2:41 PM**

If anyone stayed for the 2nd half of the meeting last night, any info on the final two projects that were on the agenda? One was 776 S. Dearborn, a nice little infill tower that we've seen first renderings for a few months ago IIRC, and the other was something in the 400 block of S. Dearborn I think - maybe 417 S. Dearborn is the address? No idea what that project is......??

ithakas · #**2984** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

If anyone stayed for the 2nd half of the meeting last night, any info on the final two projects that were on the agenda? One was 776 S. Dearborn, a nice little infill tower that we've seen first renderings for a few months ago IIRC, and the other was something in the 400 block of S. Dearborn I think - maybe 417 S. Dearborn is the address? No idea what that project is......??

I didn't stay, but the first would be the LG micro-apartment proposal. The second might be the renovation of the Burnham building between the Old Colony and Manhattan? Unless there's a proposal for the parking lot across the street we're not aware of.

maru2501 · #**2985** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 3:48 PM**

should be taller but fine

r18tdi · #**2986** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

I didn't stay, but the first would be the LG micro-apartment proposal. The second might be the renovation of the Burnham building between the Old Colony and Manhattan? Unless there's a proposal for the parking lot across the street we're not aware of.

Curbed has a good summary of both projects:
http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/3/1/1...tower-addition

SamInTheLoop · #**2987** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 5:01 PM**

^ Ah, ok - got it....thanks. So, LG is also planning to convert the historic building at 417 S Dearborn into 47 rental units........good news there....

When I heard that there were going to be a couple more projects presented at the meeting, I was holding out hope that one of them would be Roszak Printer's Row.....still hoping that one can come to fruition - one of my very favorite infill proposals this cycle....

ithakas · #**2988** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Curbed has a good summary of both projects:
http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/3/1/1...tower-addition

The micro-unit project still looks great. Amazing how simple good design can be when structured parking is removed from the equation...

Jibba · #**2989** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 5:39 PM**

Ugh, that LG Printer's Row project got watered down too. I would really like to believe that this isn't the result of a zealous neighborhood org.

r18tdi · #**2990** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Ugh, that LG Printer's Row project got watered down too. I would really like to believe that this isn't the result of a zealous neighborhood org.

It's as of right so neighbors aren't really a factor. Any changes came directly from LG or from their cooperation with Landmarks.

Jibba · #**2991** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 5:54 PM**

^They do need a zoning change because of the unit sizes. It likely doesn't meet the MLA requirements for small units of the site.

Landmarks was my second guess, which would also be inane if they had complaints about the initial design. It was an ideal style for interpolating a new building into an existing landmark fabric. It appropriated the materials, scale, and motifs of the existing stock without attempting to be a replica, and it still looked of its time. Now it's an ersatz Chicago School building that will undoubtedly be devoid of the gravitas of the real deal. And the too-large piers and spandrels are structurally superfluous and won't be doing the unit designs any favors.

braun06 · #**2992** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

It's as of right so neighbors aren't really a factor. Any changes came directly from LG or from their cooperation with Landmarks.

It seems the landmarks involvement does more to devalue vibrancy than lend to it. Long story short, getting many people to understand something innovative will always be challenging, meaning it will never be built. Im beginning to question the south loops ability to build anything too remarkable that it could leave an impact as great as the historical buildings they wish preserve or emulate.

r18tdi · #**2993** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

^They do need a zoning change because of the unit sizes. It likely doesn't meet the MLA requirements for small units of the site.

Correct, they will need a special use permit for the micro units. But I don't understand how the NIMBYs have any influence over the exterior design in this case.

Mr Downtown · #**2994** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 9:05 PM**

You guys are funny.

Last night was the first "the neighbors" had seen of the 776 South Dearborn design, and the rendering was so dark you couldn't see many details. When the developer came to a South Loop Neighbors meeting last year he claimed he didn't yet have an architect—even though he showed renderings a lot like the one we saw last night.

sentinel · #**2995** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You guys are funny.

Last night was the first "the neighbors" had seen of the 776 South Dearborn design, and the rendering was so dark you couldn't see many details. When the developer came to a South Loop Neighbors meeting last year he claimed he didn't yet have an architect—even though he showed renderings a lot like the one we saw last night.

Not true.

http://chicago.curbed.com/2015/9/11/...r-printers-row

The renderings are clearly attributed to nARCHITECTS and Vertebrae architects in the Curbed article from Sept.

Whether it is the same architect for the core-shell is not clear, but the rendering from Sept is much clearer than you make it out to be.

marothisu · #**2996** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

Not true.

http://chicago.curbed.com/2015/9/11/...r-printers-row

The renderings are clearly attributed to nARCHITECTS and Vertebrae architects in the Curbed article from Sept.

Whether it is the same architect for the core-shell is not clear, but the rendering from Sept is much clearer than you make it out to be.

Renderings are not clear. Can't see people watching TV in them.

tateyb · #**2997** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 9:48 PM**

River North Apartment Tower to Replace Retro Restaurant

Quote:

The site is well-served by transit, including a Divvy bike share station, several bus routes, and the Brown and Purple "L" lines. It sits within a particularly active stretch of road, with developments at 635 and 612 North Wells ready to add to the streetwall. Site preparation began late last year and photos show the restaurant has been completely demolished. It's a scene that signals that the intensification of River North continues unabated, removing underperforming single-storey structures in favour of a more downtown-centric scale and use.

640 N Wells site, image by harryc

Mr Downtown · #**2998** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 10:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

Not true ... The renderings are clearly attributed to nARCHITECTS and Vertebrae architects in the Curbed article from Sept.

So what? I was sitting in the front row at Grace Place, making eye contact with the developer, when he said they didn't yet have an architect. Were you even in the room? I don't like being accused of being untruthful by someone who wasn't even there.

Until last night, this was the only rendering "the neighbors" had seen:

Last night's renderings appeared to be credited to Myefski Architects.

sentinel · #**2999** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 10:36 PM**

You clearly stated in your post above that last night was the first time the 'neighbors' had seen A rendering, even though the article was from Sept of last year, also the first time that there was a community meeting about this project also the first time a rendering was shown at the Sourh Loop neighbors meeting, so you're contradicting your own statements.

Mr Downtown · #**3000** Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 10:54 PM**

"A rendering" is not the same as "the design." The building's massing could be described using Morse Code. What's important in context of a landmark district is how the spandrels meet the corner piers, how deep the reveal is at the minor piers, how those transition to the rooftop pergola, what material is used for the window frames, what kind of storefront system is being specified, how the service entries look.