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

[BVictor1]

Upcoming Community Presentation for Proposed Development at Rush Street and Superior Street




Alderman Reilly invites you to join him at an informational presentation for a development proposal at Rush Street and Superior Street. Representatives of Symmetry Development will present their plans and answer any questions you may have about this proposal.

Symmetry proposes to construct a 60-story, 725' tall building containing approximately 30,000 square feet of retail space, 216 hotel rooms, 120 hotel timeshare units, 246 condominium units and 325 parking spaces.

WHAT: New Mixed-Use Development located at 739 N. Wabash,
42-48 E. Superior, 730-740 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois

WHO: Hosted by Alderman Brendan Reilly and
River North Residents Association (RNRA)

WHEN: Monday, March 13, 2017, at 6:00 P.M.

WHERE: Sofitel Chicago, Magnificent Mile
20 E. Chestnut, Paris Ballroom, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60611

Alderman Reilly works hard to provide an open and transparent community review of all local development proposals. We hope you can join Alderman and RNRA to engage in a direct dialogue with each development team to gain a better understanding of their proposal and receive answers to any questions you may have.

[ithakas]

What happened to the SOM design? The one that was superior but that I secretly hoped would fail because I'd rather keep one of the very few historic, small-scale blocks in an area packed with podiums intact...

And timeshares? Really?

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Upcoming Community Presentation for Proposed Development at Rush Street and Superior Street




Alderman Reilly invites you to join him at an informational presentation for a development proposal at Rush Street and Superior Street. Representatives of Symmetry Development will present their plans and answer any questions you may have about this proposal.

Symmetry proposes to construct a 60-story, 725' tall building containing approximately 30,000 square feet of retail space, 216 hotel rooms, 120 hotel timeshare units, 246 condominium units and 325 parking spaces.

WHAT: New Mixed-Use Development located at 739 N. Wabash,
42-48 E. Superior, 730-740 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois

WHO: Hosted by Alderman Brendan Reilly and
River North Residents Association (RNRA)

WHEN: Monday, March 13, 2017, at 6:00 P.M.

WHERE: Sofitel Chicago, Magnificent Mile
20 E. Chestnut, Paris Ballroom, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60611

Alderman Reilly works hard to provide an open and transparent community review of all local development proposals. We hope you can join Alderman and RNRA to engage in a direct dialogue with each development team to gain a better understanding of their proposal and receive answers to any questions you may have.

hmmm nice height and interesting crown it would be nice to see some glass in the sea of beige over there. I will be sad to see some of those old buildings go though.

[ithakas]

That's it, it's time for a new River North historic district. I'm emailing Chance to get this going.

Between this block, the building at Chicago/Rush, and the Van Cleef Salon church, we're losing too much of this.

[TimeAgain]

Beautiful. Build it. Build it now.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ithakas

That's it, it's time for a new River North historic district. I'm emailing Chance to get this going.

Between this block, the building at Chicago/Rush, and the Van Cleef Salon church, we're losing too much of this.

The problem is not the tower but that it would sit on a half block podium. Those damn parking podiums are destroying (or have already destroyed) the fabric of the area and the visual interest that comes from having lots of different buildings cheek by jowl.

[munchymunch]

Doesn't look to promising design wise. Would rather have the old low rises.

[the urban politician]

I wonder if they will be going after foreign buyers?

[F1 Tommy]

That is ugly...Looks like a closet storage rack. Reilly will probably approve it now

[spyguy]

While height is always nice, it won't make a difference in this location. The design looks terrible and something out of the 90's (is this SBC?). And if the addresses are correct in Reilly's newsletter, this means they are not only demolishing the nice lowrises on Wabash, but the mid-block building on Superior as well as Giordano's (or is that part being kept)? Not acceptable. I hope this one dies quickly.

And by Reilly's definition, this is a way more "ambitious" (to use his words) program compared to the hotel he killed a year or two ago.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by spyguy

While height is always nice, it won't make a difference in this location. The design looks terrible and something out of the 90's (is this SBC?).

I'm not a fan of the design. Maybe we just need to see other renderings at certain agles to get a better idea, but right now, it's not stellar, but mediocre.

[ChiTownWonder]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm not a fan of the design. Maybe we just need to see other renderings at certain agles to get a better idea, but right now, it's not stellar, but mediocre.

I agree, the rendering is what is most ridiculous, you cant see the street level interaction, or a proper angle of the crown. All this rendering displays is the basic shaft of the tower..

[chicubs111]

Height = Good, Design = Sucks (based on the one rendering), ..also why destroy nice lowrise buildings when there are plenty of parking lots in the area or less then desirable lowrises to take down?

[Rizzo]

Not sure, but maybe someone can take a closer look. Are they attempting to line the base with the old facades along superior or did they just forget to photoshop them out? Look closely and you'll see the side profile of one of the buildings.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Not sure, but maybe someone can take a closer look. Are they attempting to line the base with the old facades along superior or did they just forget to photoshop them out? Look closely and you'll see the side profile of one of the buildings.

No old facades somebody just f'd up using photoshop. If you look closely you can see somebody forgot to crop a vertical strip off on the bottom right side of the building.

[the urban politician]

I might be turning NIMBY as I age here, but if another out of town developer is just going to try to plop down a tower on a blank podium, collect their returns, and scram, then we have a problem. We might as well put this screwed up Aldermanic prerogative system to some sort of good use by extracting some good concessions here.

Now I know that the usual fuckface brigade will be out there whining about parking and congestion, but if they can be ignored, some sound design changes should be pursued. Any project that has 8 floors of blank podium simply must be declared unacceptable from the get go.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I might be turning NIMBY as I age here, but if another out of town developer is just going to try to plop down a tower on a blank podium, collect their returns, and scram, then we have a problem. We might as well put this screwed up Aldermanic prerogative system to some sort of good use by extracting some good concessions here.

Now I know that the usual fuckface brigade will be out there whining about parking and congestion, but if they can be ignored, some sound design changes should be pursued. Any project that has 8 floors of blank podium simply must be declared unacceptable from the get go.

The previous design was far superior as it had no parking and preserved 1 structural bay of depth on the existing 740 N Rush building, so different than a standard facadectomy.

The auto-centric minded people who also complain about traffic are the ones demanding these projects have more parking, and thus the proposal comes back with a podium. As BVictor mentioned, Reilly's office usually sees these proposals first and often forces changes before they are "ready for community input".

I'm betting coming back with a parking component and arguing including it drove up the cost is why we have a larger design on the table now.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The previous design was far superior as it had no parking and preserved 1 structural bay of depth on the existing 740 N Rush building, so different than a standard facadectomy.

The auto-centric minded people who also complain about traffic are the ones demanding these projects have more parking, and thus the proposal comes back with a podium. As BVictor mentioned, Reilly's office usually sees these proposals first and often forces changes before they are "ready for community input".

I'm betting coming back with a parking component and arguing including it drove up the cost is why we have a larger design on the table now.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The first SOM proposal (exactly how it was, not how it was but with a couple hundred ' extra, to all the weird overly height-obsessed forumers here) was so superior to this design.........in pretty much every way imaginable (and not just this design's ridiculous crown).....

I hope that you're right on the last part, Shawn - but that there's also sufficient blowback against the larger size and they then get the NIMBY's to accept the earlier proposal as-is!.....

[stylusx]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I might be turning NIMBY as I age here, but if another out of town developer is just going to try to plop down a tower on a blank podium, collect their returns, and scram, then we have a problem. We might as well put this screwed up Aldermanic prerogative system to some sort of good use by extracting some good concessions here.

Now I know that the usual fuckface brigade will be out there whining about parking and congestion, but if they can be ignored, some sound design changes should be pursued. Any project that has 8 floors of blank podium simply must be declared unacceptable from the get go.

With respect to the risk of being a 'NIMBY', it doesn't take a NIMBY to address the policy problem here. Since 2006 there have been a few designs proposed for this location under two Aldermen. Before Reilly, Burt Natarus bragged that he promoted these developments because this form of property tax receipt comes to the City first and can be spent immediately. Other forms of tax revenue go to Springfield first and that was no good according to the Alderman.

The last community meeting regarding this location (2014) was really well attended, contentious and showed Reilly that there were enough voters in the neighborhood to unseat him if he got it wrong. Eventually, he scuttled the plan.

Although the previous lack of parking was a main issue, it was not the only one. The congestion is real and even now, traffic backs up and gridlocks from the Michigan Ave./Superior intersection through Rush and approaching Wabash. Add 325 cars to that ecosystem and nobody can move.

The area is packed with UBER drivers trolling for riders. One recent day, six UBER cars crossed the Michigan Ave./Erie St. intersection in a row on one light.

Simply, the area can't afford another tower built with dumb money and creating gridlock. The local businesses suffer, and Reilly will get an earful about this at his next meeting on March 13th.

[Halsted & Villagio]

I remember visiting Chicago as a 17 year old HS senior. The first time I saw those row homes I remember thinking, "wow, how cool"... what a nice break in the forest. I also remember thinking how special Chicago is... what a city!... to have such a mix of high and low, old and new, density and respites. I just thought those row homes were the coolest thing.

Make no mistake, these row homes and their particular placement in this part of the city makes them special. I would personally hate to see them go but if they have to go, it must be for a design worthy of losing this special piece of Chicago history.

This current, cheap looking, Houstonian/Dallas design is simply not worth what we will be losing.

.