CHICAGO | 150 North Riverside | 752 FT | 54 FLOORS

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by MultiModal

http://vimeo.com/69960007

Not sure if anyone has posted this but it give a good representation of what the park will look like.

Awful. It's like two completely unmatching aesthetics sloppily put together. As if the architects and landscape architects married two totally different projects with zero communication between one another. The tower is fucking slick and that lobby looks amazing. But good lord. The whimsical design of the green space just looks fucking god-awful tacky. Thumbs down.

Edit:
Ugh. I can't stop watching this video in disgust. The Lake side of the building looks painfully bad. And what the hell is up with the curved glass cafe looking shit at the edge of the building?! The tower is clean and powerful looking, like Helvetica Bold or Impact. The base is a fucking absurd-looking joke, like Comic Sans or fuck, some kind of dingbat font...

[kemachs]

^^I agree. Contrast can be a good thing if done right, but these two just don't seem to jive.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ ^

Complaints can be sent straight to the landscape architect on this project: Brendan M. Reilly, FASLA, FAAR.


In related news, what did you guys expect?

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^^ ^

In related news, what did you guys expect?

Haha, maybe something that referenced the building whatsoever? LA is my field, and the constant challenge is taking what the clients (or in this case, the neighborhood/Alderman) want and creating something harmonious - something that both compliments the architecture while tackling various programmed elements. If they want a park, give them a park, but it should be something strong and modern like the building itself. If you don't think that's possible, look at Peavy Plaza in downtown Minneapolis - something with fountains and controlled green space would have been perfect for this site.

Whatever LA firm spit this out probably didn't spend a lot of time with the building's design team. IMO, a project like this would be best executed by a firm that employs both architects and LAs. And if this landscape design was indeed done by the same firm as the tower, then shame on them.

[Pilton]

Am I missing something in the video? There appears to be no pedestrian access directly from Lake St. at either the back of 150 N. Riverside (walled off and above Lake St. grade) or the front of 150 N. Riverside (below Lake Street grade and connecting to the River Point Lake St. bridge underpass). The only pedestrian access at street level will be at Randolph Street (from Wacker by crossing the River or from Canal)?

[jc5680]

^^ That video is fairly old, I believe. I think it was one of the first things shown when this building was announced. Lake street is certainly not handled ideally, but it is still much better than what river point is doing. There is pedestrian access, even some at grade. From the river point thread:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by Pilton

Am I missing something in the video? There appears to be no pedestrian access directly from Lake St. at either the back of 150 N. Riverside (walled off and above Lake St. grade) or the front of 150 N. Riverside (below Lake Street grade and connecting to the River Point Lake St. bridge underpass). The only pedestrian access at street level will be at Randolph Street (from Wacker by crossing the River or from Canal)?

The video doesn't show the the Lake Street side for very long but looking at the plans available online, this is what is going on:

There is no main building entrance on Lake Street. Access is either off Randolph or through the garage entered off Lake. There is a set of switchback steps right next to the parking entrance that will access the raised park. The main river walk pathway to the east of the building is at, or nearly at grade with Lake Street.

Pedestrians can definitely enter the site from Lake, but they will have to walk around to the south side of the building to get in.

(Thanks jc5680 for the image to illustrate my point)

[Clarkkent2420]

#

[Pilton]

^ The switchback steps are ADA compliant access from Lake St. to the elevated park which is open to the public? lol!

[Tom Servo]

That is just painfully sloppy.

[chris08876]

^^^^ The plaza/mini-park would look better flat along the street. The walls and steps look so tacky. But the base of the structure is awesome from a design standpoint.

[Skyguy_7]

^Due to the tremendous site constraints, this is how it has to be. If the project were built over a typical surface lot, the layout would be much different They don't have that luxury here, hovering 30' over 8+ active rail lines. The development looks pretty nice and should function well, considering these conditions.

[SamInTheLoop]

As I know there's been some skepticism here, saw yesterday in online newsletter Bisnow that this development's principal leasing broker also confirmed a third quarter 2016 delivery date.....

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

As I know there's been some skepticism here, saw yesterday in online newsletter Bisnow that this development's principal leasing broker also confirmed a third quarter 2016 delivery date.....

We will know if that's accurate by April. If they haven't started cassion drilling by then, then there is no chance in hell of a delivery by 3Q 2016. Construction must be imminent if that date is to be believed.

[Clarkkent2420]

#

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420

^^ Wholly inaccurate statement

In what world are they going to complete foundation work, frame out a 750' cantilevered tower, and complete interior buildouts in 30 months?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

In what world are they going to complete foundation work, frame out a 750' cantilevered tower, and complete interior buildouts in 30 months?

It's a steel frame building. It's not impossible.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It's a steel frame building. It's not impossible.

Being built over active railway tracks? I sincerely doubt they can get it done in less than that. Like I said though, if they start by April or so, then yes, it is doable, but after that I really doubt they can get it done in the less than 30 months that will remain. Site prep and cassions alone will probably take 6 months on this site give the constraints. Then you are talking another 6 months of dicking around building the plaza level just like at River Point. then they can finally start working on the tower. Suppose that takes 12-18 months to top out and clad. another 6-12 months to finish interior build out and you are talking a minimum of 30 months if you don't run into any delays. Perhaps they could get some of the lowest floor tenants spaces ready in a hair under that timeframe, but that's really pushing it. They haven't even got a loan or permits yet so they must be planning on getting both of those damn soon if they want to have this done by then which is the main point I am trying to make.

Also, as a landlord you are always conservative about your planned delivery. You need to be very careful about when your leases begin because you can take massive losses if you can't deliver the space in time. You will be on the hook for huge damages if you cause a tenant like William Blair to go into hold over on a 300,000 SF lease. Holdover is typically 150-200% the normal rent. By the end of their lease Blair is going to be paying no less than $30/SF/YR NNN, but probably much higher like $40/SF+. If you set that at say 175% holdover rent that means the rate will bump up to $50-$70/SF/YR range and the judge will hold you responsible for the difference between that and the new rate you are paying (probably like $36/SF for a AAA tenant taking so much space) so you are talking about damages in the range of $3-4/SF/Month on 300,000 SF which is obviously millions of dollars in losses if the developer fucks up just for missing with ONE tenant. Imagine similar damages on however much other space they fail to deliver on. Trust me, they are not going to fuck around with their delivery date which is why a 30 month schedule or less is very ballsy, unless, of course, they are planning on starting like this month in which case we are talking 32-33 months schedule which is fairly comfortable.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420

^^ Wholly inaccurate statement

Yes, correct.

I would say 28 months or so as sort of a 'baseline', avg. total time from first caisson to opening day, however, they could easily reduce this by up to a few months if necessary. I might put an absolute 'drop dead' for caisson work to begin perhaps as late as August or so.....

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Yes, correct.

I would say 28 months or so as sort of a 'baseline', avg. total time from first caisson to opening day, however, they could easily reduce this by up to a few months if necessary. I might put an absolute 'drop dead' for caisson work to begin perhaps as late as August or so.....

Yeah, a baseline for a straightforward, basic, project. Not one being built over a highly active series of rail lines with a complex structural scheme and the need for a deck to be constructed before they can effectively stage any significant materials or equipment. Just look at River Point, they have been fiddling around with the deck for what? Nearly a year? I went back and looked at Harry's updates in the River Point thread and they started drilling supports for the deck in March of last year and they started "site prep" about a month before that. Do you really think that this building is going to move faster than that given the more compact, complex, site?

Again, I can't see this being open in any less than 30 months, if not significantly longer. If they start construction this spring, then they can make the 3Q 2016 date if they really push it, but any later than that and they will be running into 2017 with their delivery. Maybe we agree to disagree, but I'm certain that we are looking at 30+ months here from shovels in the ground to delivery.