HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

    

Loews North Park Drive in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 12, 2012, 8:21 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 327
Quote:
He would also like to go taller, but the economics just aren't there at the moment.
Interesting. So he might add some height at the end of construction ?
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 12, 2012, 9:22 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
Well, we dodged a bullet on this site in the past. It was supposed to be an Adam's Mark Hotel, which I'm told was going to be a really fugley POS.
I vaguely remember that and just threw up a little in my mouth when you mentioned it.

Especially now that Illinois and Grand are so much more built up in Streeterville compared to fifteen years ago, a design standard has kind of emerged in the public's mind so that it's a bit less probable someone will design total crap for a new tower. The good is crowding out the bad, hope it continues.
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 13, 2012, 5:06 AM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
Interesting. So he might add some height at the end of construction ?
It sounds like more height was desired by the developer, but economically it doesn't work. A building cannot have a vertical expansion after it is built without being engineered for it during the original construction (a la Blus Cross Blue Shield)... I doubt the developer will do that though. While the site is in a great location, I doubt land will be valuable enough anytime in the near future that he can justify the extra upfront cost to pay for the added engineering to make a vertical expansion feasible. Think of all the empty lots to be developed first... While he doesn't have control of any of those other lots (to my knowledge) the cost to a developer of building a 20 story building more inexpensively than he can build an extra 20 stories onto this will make other buildings cheaper and more profitable to investors in my opinion.
__________________
“The test of a great building is in the marketplace. The Marketplace recognizes the value of quality architecture and endorses it in the sales price it is able to achieve.” — Jon Pickard, Principal, Pickard Chilton
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 14, 2012, 7:07 PM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
The Chicago Architecture Blog has a piece on 435 N Park. Apart from some errors (like an outdated picture of the building) and some points upon which I disagree (like classifying SOAR as a NIMBY group and calling it SORE - Seniors overlords of real estate - with the blogger's perennial sass), it had some interesting statements.

On Streeterville coming to terms with having towers built:

Quote:
...a recent public meeting on the building [435 N Park Dr.] was actually moved to a smaller space than originally planned, and there was still room to spare.
and

Quote:
As one woman put it at a recent community meeting, “For the most part, a lot of people around here don’t care about the height of a building anymore. A lot of people care about how it looks — the design. How it fits into the area.”
On the designs coming from SCB:

Quote:
When I interviewed [SCB CEO John] Lahey a couple of weeks ago, I asked him if he agreed with me that most SCB buildings look the same. He strongly disagreed when we were talking in private, and when I repeated the assertion in the open in front of some of his staffers, there was at least one audible snort of disapproval.
On our criticisms of these towers:

Quote:
Skyscrapers get more expensive as they get taller, and maybe DRW can’t afford to put up a statement building. “Go big or go home” doesn’t necessarily apply. It’s easy for the Chicago Architecture Blog and SORE and the rest of Chicago to throw stones at the design, but we’re not paying for it. At least not in terms of money.
Also, more proof from Crain's that we are seeing a rental bubble right now. We'll see if developers are restrained or we will see a crash in 2013...
__________________
“The test of a great building is in the marketplace. The Marketplace recognizes the value of quality architecture and endorses it in the sales price it is able to achieve.” — Jon Pickard, Principal, Pickard Chilton
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 7:45 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPhi View Post
...
Also, more proof from Crain's that we are seeing a rental bubble right now. We'll see if developers are restrained or we will see a crash in 2013...
Rentals don't bubble to the same extent that condos do. I wouldn't worry about it. Plus, an apartment bubble only hurts big players and actually helps the average person, unlike a condo or SFH bubble, which hurts a broad spectrum of people. This economy has a lot of things to worry about, but an apartment bubble isn't one of them. Lower rent may stave off the day when condo prices increase rapidly again, but having more people downtown makes it more vibrant, which makes it more attractive, which still helps it overall.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 9:58 PM
jcchii's Avatar
jcchii jcchii is offline
Content provider
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: city on the take
Posts: 3,119
^ well said
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 11:10 PM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
I believe rents could bubble, as the 90's in Chicago's commercial business spaces did. Though, as emathias said, low rents "help" the majority of people, it still hurts real estate investment (especially the condo market) as we would see little to no new construction as an overbuilt inventory is absorbed. It doesn't seem like we will see anything beyond stabilized rental prices, but it could easily become a bubble if investors get overzealous. I was probably being a bit hyperbolic in my last post. Also, I just realized how offpost my last post got. sorry. Lets try to continue this over in the Gen. Dev. thread if anyone wants to.
__________________
“The test of a great building is in the marketplace. The Marketplace recognizes the value of quality architecture and endorses it in the sales price it is able to achieve.” — Jon Pickard, Principal, Pickard Chilton
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 4:46 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 327
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:10 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post

Only in Chicago do you have YIMBYS

Perfect city for America's next tallest I say

Let's hope this thing breaks 800'
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:30 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Only in Chicago do you have YIMBYS

Perfect city for America's next tallest I say

Let's hope this thing breaks 800'
Haha true, if the developer manages to get extra funding the height of this will definitely rise, but that's a big "if"

For now though, we should be happy that we will have 2 200m buildings under construction at the end of this year. Chicago needs some buildings in the 600-700 foot range anyways.
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:51 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
Haha true, if the developer manages to get extra funding the height of this will definitely rise
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that such a plan is being considered. These are just random musings of development observers. Let's reel it back just a little bit. As has been mentioned before, your enthusiasm is commendable but try to use SSP as an educational resource as much as possible. You can learn a lot about the development process by just sitting back and soaking up the knowledge that is available on these boards.

Last edited by Buckman821; May 16, 2012 at 6:02 PM.
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 6:23 PM
Swicago Swi Sox's Avatar
Swicago Swi Sox Swicago Swi Sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 236
Ogden Plaza

Interesting/Sad article on CAB today regarding the ugly clock plaza near 435 N Park. Some of the older renderings of this project showed the park totally renovated, but more recent images show it remaining the same. At one of the SOAR meetings the developers intimated that they hoped to renovate the plaza, but that it was more complicated. CAB has more back story:

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...r-ogden-plaza/

Quote:
There had been hope that new development bordering Ogden Plaza (429 North Columbus Drive) would result in the urban park being renovated. But according to alderman Brendan Reilly, that’s not going to happen.

Reilly planned to press DRW Investments, the developers of the new hotel and apartment tower next door at 435 North Park Drive, to include rebuilding the park as part of the deal to get city approval for the project. But the world is more complicated than that.
...
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 6:28 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that such a plan is being considered. These are just random musings of development observers. Let's reel it back just a little bit. As has been mentioned before, your enthusiasm is commendable but try to use SSP as an educational resource as much as possible. You can learn a lot about the development process by just sitting back and soaking up the knowledge that is available on these boards.
There was another article where the developer said that he wanted it to be taller, but didn't have the money.

That's why I said it's a big "if"
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 11:38 PM
Neuman's Avatar
Neuman Neuman is offline
The Moon Rulez! #1
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northside
Posts: 131
What's up with the Star Trek symbol at the top of the building in that render?
__________________
Alright, when I say your name, you say 'here.' And we will assume 'here' is short for 'here I am...rock you like a hurricane. -Ignignokt
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 11:45 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuman View Post
What's up with the Star Trek symbol at the top of the building in that render?
It appears to be SCB's new shtick with its early renderings. And yes, that is an old rendering.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 4:33 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox View Post
Interesting/Sad article on CAB today regarding the ugly clock plaza near 435 N Park. Some of the older renderings of this project showed the park totally renovated, but more recent images show it remaining the same. At one of the SOAR meetings the developers intimated that they hoped to renovate the plaza, but that it was more complicated. CAB has more back story:

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...r-ogden-plaza/
This whole parking garage thing seems like a poorly structured deal. The Park District has little incentive to maintain a desolate plaza in the middle of nowhere, and when there's little incentive, it just doesn't get done. If some private company wanted to lease the parking, the Park District should have insisted that they also assume responsibility for the plaza maintenance.

People seem to think that above ground and underground are two separate and unlinked worlds, but water that hits the surface will eventually percolate down to anything beneath, and in a poorly-maintained environment, this is just asking for trouble.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 4:53 AM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
People seem to think that above ground and underground are two separate and unlinked worlds, but water that hits the surface will eventually percolate down to anything beneath, and in a poorly-maintained environment, this is just asking for trouble.
This is surprisingly poignant and—dare I say?—deep.
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 1:32 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,718
Construction Start This Year?

I understand there was a recent media report stating the developer claimed financing was already in-place for this development and construction would start this year. I'm quite skeptical. For large projects, a developer's deep track record in similarly large and/or complex developments and longer-term strong lender relationships are pretty vital right now to get them off the ground, and in my opinion thus far I'm frankly afraid I don't see it here - at least for a start this year (unless this developer were to bring in a strong development partner on this project).......
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; May 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM.
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 12:03 AM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,511
^DRW has teamed up with John Buck. And the project was approved by the Plan Commission yesterday.

Quote:
• A proposal by real estate investor Donald Wilson to build to build a high-rise at 454 N. Park Drive in the Streeterville neighborhood, with 398 residences, a 400-room hotel and 230 parking slots.
Read more: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...#ixzz1w1Z5AUAl
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 30, 2012, 1:55 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,718
^ Ahh....I do vaguely recall something about John Buck being involved in some capacity. I wonder, though, exactly what capacity....it seems to me they're recently taking a role in some projects in which they probably just earn a fee by performing a development (construction?) management function of some sort (they also of course still have other projects in which they are the primary developer and partial equity source. Regardless of specific role, Buck's participation will be a positive factor in terms of financing prospects....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.