CHICAGO | 740 N Rush/739 N Wabash | 725 FT | 60 FLOORS | CANCELLED

[Notyrview]

It is very PoMo Dallas-Atlanta-Charlotte-y.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Crowns generally remind me of Pomo and it doesn't do a great job of engaging at street level (unless we're going by the very low bar set by the neighboring towers at this scale)...

What more could it do to engage at streetlevel, it appears to me that there are servers awnings and entrances at streetlevel, could be for retail shops, so I'm failing to see what more could be done to engage.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

What more could it do to engage at streetlevel, it appears to me that there are servers awnings and entrances at streetlevel, could be for retail shops, so I'm failing to see what more could be done to engage.

Get rid of the four-story parking podium taking up half the block.

[kolchak]

I'm not really sure why but I just don't like the top of this building. The podium is bad enough (can you say amenity deck) but the top doesn't really reference any surrounding architecture and feels out of place. It just doesn't look 'comfortable ' in its surroundings.

[trvlr70]

I just don't think this building will look good in Chicago. Bottom line: doesn't fit!

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

I just don't think this building will look good in Chicago. Bottom line: doesn't fit!

What doesnt fit?...the bracing on the bottom floors meet the street level ..ala JHC ..I think your looking at this way to critically...whats wrong with a diff style for chicago? its by no means a terrible building

[BrinChi]

Any thoughts on why they went with the bracing the way they did? Will the core be able to be smaller and thus more SF per floor?

I think it at least looks interesting, especially the way the braces meet the street. The tragedy of the situation is the loss of the old building stock. I get why the land value economics make sense, but it's still very sad. I hope the row homes are moved. And it'll be really sad if this project gets off the ground, they knock those buildings down, then construction stalls out in the next recession.

[KWILLSKYLINE]

I think there would be less complaints about the design of this one if that Canyon Ranch got built years back which also had a very Dallas/Miami look to it. Which I was a big fan of. I'd like to see some more round shaped rises around that area even though they would blend better in the south loop. Personal preference.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

What doesnt fit?...the bracing on the bottom floors meet the street level ..ala JHC ..I think your looking at this way to critically...whats wrong with a diff style for chicago? its by no means a terrible building

It just looks like a cheesy gimmick to me, which is why I believe many people are attributing it to a Miami or Dallas where they don't mind being flamboyant to make a sale. I personally prefer angles on a building to a dome. I do think the structural support being at the top is cool if it does indeed provide some structural relief and creates more space in the building. But let's face it, this building is about as close to an overall dildo shape as a building gets.

[stylusx]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Near North Side residents air opposition to proposed 60-story tower



Gail Marks Jarvis
Contact Reporter
Chicago Tribune

March 14, 2017

Just pronounced DOA by Ald. Reilly 4-7-2017.

He can still count votes.

[BVictor1]

^Which is why I'm glad the Holy Name parking lot isn't in his ward.

[stylusx]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

^Which is why I'm glad the Holy Name parking lot isn't in his ward.

Yeah, that falls on the line...2nd ward gets to fight that battle?

[i_am_hydrogen]

Ald. Reilly just killed this project. From his newsletter:

I am writing to provide an update regarding Symmetry's recent community presentation of their development proposed for Wabash & Superior. Based upon my review of their mixed-use proposal and its related traffic impacts on the immediately surrounding neighborhood, I have informed Symmetry that I will not support their Planned Development Application. As such, their current proposal, or slight variations thereof, will not move forward.

Our recent community presentation with the River North Residents Association (RNRA) was very well attended and several hundred participants had many opinions to share and questions to ask about the proposed uses, density, quality-of-life factors and traffic impacts. The meeting lasted several hours and every participant was given a chance to be heard.

Based on the significant negative feedback my office has received expressing concerns regarding potential traffic impacts and the multiple uses (and intensity of uses) proposed for the site, I took the time to re-read the Developer's traffic study, cover-to-cover.

Because all parking ingress & egress and all loading activities are proposed to be staged out of a public alley to the north of the development site, I personally visited the site on several different days to observe loading activities and traffic patterns occurring in the alley. Based on my personal observations, the proposed parking and loading scheme that would utilize the public alley simply will not work for this proposal.

We also registered numerous concerns related to existing traffic circulation (or lack thereof) in the immediate neighborhood. Having observed the (poor) functionality of Superior Street during the afternoon and evening hours - the vehicular traffic on that street is currently reduced to one lane, eastbound on a routine basis. It is fair to assume additional curbside activities like taxicabs; Uber, limousine service and party buses will spill over onto (virtually non-functioning) Superior Street and exacerbate an already-untenable condition.

The poor traffic conditions on Superior Street and conflicts with potential usage of the public alley for ingress/egress to the site are compounded by the congestion resulting from pick-ups in the western-most southbound traffic lane at the Frances Xavier Warde School on the west side of Wabash Avenue. This must be addressed regardless of a new development.

There are also valid concerns about the intensity of the multiple uses on the site. Symmetry's proposal would call for a 725-foot tall, 60-story tower containing 216 hotel keys, 120 timeshare units, 246 condominium units and roughly 30,000 square feet of retail at-grade. This combination of uses suggests heavy volumes of deliveries, curbside pick-up/drop-off, special event traffic and buses. It's simply too much for this block.

Because I will not support this Planned Development proposal or the additional FAR the Developer wishes to purchase through density bonus payments - I have encouraged Symmetry to consider other options for this site, including:

(1) Propose a Planned Development that does not seek to purchase additional FAR for development of the site and - rather than propose multiple, intense uses - strongly consider pursuing a single use, such as a residential project.

(2) Consider forgoing a Planned Development altogether and work to determine what could be developed under their existing development entitlements and zoning restrictions related to height, uses, etc.

I have informed Commissioner Reifman and the Department of Planning that this proposal will not be moving forward. We look forward to reviewing any future proposal with the Developer, so long as it is aligned with the suggestions outlined above. Once we receive any new proposal for this site, my office will promptly notify impacted neighbors and communicate next steps for our transparent community process.

[JK47]

Ugh, Reilly mentioning Uber just reminds me of how terrible their drivers are. They constantly tie up traffic, wouldn't be surprised if they're a huge contributor to congestion downtown.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by JK47

Ugh, Reilly mentioning Uber just reminds me of how terrible their drivers are. They constantly tie up traffic, wouldn't be surprised if they're a huge contributor to congestion downtown.

I love ride sharing services, but that's true. It's true everywhere though. The traffic in downtown Chicago is really not that terrible compared to what it could be.

[chicubs111]

Reilly is a such a D****.. Alderman have far too much power in this city...how the hell does one person just nix something like this...

[marothisu]

By the way, it's really sad news. I hope Reilly can go

[TimeAgain]

People can dislike the design, but this isn't being killed because of that. It's being killed because it's tall, parking, congestion blah blah blah. How can you live in downtown and stop a project like this? Absolutely silly.

[i_am_hydrogen]

It's always the same common denominator with NIMBYs: traffic.

/facepalm

[aaron38]

I'm going to approach this from a different angle. We all hate the large amount of parking and blank podiums in these projects. So maybe it's time for developers to do away with the parking? Yes people love parking. But if the neighborhood refuses, the project can either move ahead sans, or die.