HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals



201 North Columbus Drive in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 5:31 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,702
^ Thanks for posting. Hadn't seen that doc yet. This one is a bit on the frustrating side waiting for.......I just wonder why (if it's indeed the case right now still) why Magellan can't nail down its hotel flags for this project.......there is no shortage of hotels brands looking to expand or plant a flag in downtown Chicago......further, LSE is in a little bit of a strange point right now - and it has been for the past 1-2 years......that being, it's an odd point in the cycle to not have any resi and/or hotel projects under construction in this development.....I mean, how long has it been since Coast has been completed - or even since it reached 90-95% occupancy? If you're Magellan, you can't be exactly pleased with yourself that the period between delivery of Coast and the delivery of the next project after that (obviously not counting GEMS here) - which still figures to be this one (not Vista) - will be, like, maybe 5 years?? In a big expansion cycle?? Trust me, that's not a good result, and for me it's a bit of a head-scratcher, quite frankly.....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 4:51 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,702
Site "O" did come up several times last evening at the big Vista Tower community meeting. Unfortunately nothing really new or revealing.

I was correct in thinking that somehow "O" was part of the changes related to Vista and overall LSE PD that will go to Plan Commission/City Council starting next month......apparently a little height allowance is being shaved off "O" to allow for a little extra at Vista. I think 680' or so was allowed at "O".......hopefully they are only going to go down to 640' or so here, and bare minimum I'd say 600'.....anything below that would just seem silly to me at this particular location........also mentioned was that there will be a public vertical connection added in the form of an elevator from Upper Columbus level down to LSE park level at parcel "O"

Still, frustrating and disappointing that Magellan seems to be - for no good reason, at least from a market standpoint - spinning its wheels a bit with this significant and important development.........who knows - perhaps after LSE PD changes go through the entitlement process, this one might also see movement by spring '16??

One other thing I want to stress: Magellan continues to claim that they are not going back for more overall square footage at LSE. They continue to assert that they are going to keep it to an additional 2.7 mil. sq ft. (after Vista's 1.6 mil. sq ft). My guess is that "O" would be 700-800k sq ft total.....and that would leave 1.9-2 mil sq ft for the remaining residential towers at the E end/NE corner of LSE...............I'm not convinced they want some sort of trophy tower at the NE corner - I could be wrong of course - but if they do, I do not see any other scenario other then Magellan needing to go back for a PD amendment and get more sq ft at that time - and thus going directly back on their repeated word this year.............if this is really their plan, then why would they be so adamant right now that they are not going to be asking for an increase? It's not as if the public has been pressuring them on that issue (at least as far as what has been visible to me).............that's why I maintaining I think it's at least 50% as far as probability there is not going to be some sort of trophy/supertall/focal point at the NE................on the other hand, there's also, I suppose a chance they could design some sort of very slender, very tall building for that corner............
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 6:53 PM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Site "O" did come up several times last evening at the big Vista Tower community meeting. Unfortunately nothing really new or revealing.

I was correct in thinking that somehow "O" was part of the changes related to Vista and overall LSE PD that will go to Plan Commission/City Council starting next month......apparently a little height allowance is being shaved off "O" to allow for a little extra at Vista. I think 680' or so was allowed at "O".......hopefully they are only going to go down to 640' or so here, and bare minimum I'd say 600'.....anything below that would just seem silly to me at this particular location........also mentioned was that there will be a public vertical connection added in the form of an elevator from Upper Columbus level down to LSE park level at parcel "O"

Still, frustrating and disappointing that Magellan seems to be - for no good reason, at least from a market standpoint - spinning its wheels a bit with this significant and important development.........who knows - perhaps after LSE PD changes go through the entitlement process, this one might also see movement by spring '16??

One other thing I want to stress: Magellan continues to claim that they are not going back for more overall square footage at LSE. They continue to assert that they are going to keep it to an additional 2.7 mil. sq ft. (after Vista's 1.6 mil. sq ft). My guess is that "O" would be 700-800k sq ft total.....and that would leave 1.9-2 mil sq ft for the remaining residential towers at the E end/NE corner of LSE...............I'm not convinced they want some sort of trophy tower at the NE corner - I could be wrong of course - but if they do, I do not see any other scenario other then Magellan needing to go back for a PD amendment and get more sq ft at that time - and thus going directly back on their repeated word this year.............if this is really their plan, then why would they be so adamant right now that they are not going to be asking for an increase? It's not as if the public has been pressuring them on that issue (at least as far as what has been visible to me).............that's why I maintaining I think it's at least 50% as far as probability there is not going to be some sort of trophy/supertall/focal point at the NE................on the other hand, there's also, I suppose a chance they could design some sort of very slender, very tall building for that corner............

One wonders why anything less than a supertall would even be considered for the site. And I'd hope going out with a whimper (relative to potential) would be frowned upon by those in office.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 8:56 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 655
Sam's right. ^^ it's a planned development. they are grandfathered, but they don't want any chance of getting hit with things like the affordable housing requirement if they increase the number of units beyond what's already been approved. So they get around that by chopping part of one building off and sticking it on top of this one. Instant height with no possible penalty
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 1:27 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
One other thing I want to stress: Magellan continues to claim that they are not going back for more overall square footage at LSE. They continue to assert that they are going to keep it to an additional 2.7 mil. sq ft. (after Vista's 1.6 mil. sq ft). My guess is that "O" would be 700-800k sq ft total.....and that would leave 1.9-2 mil sq ft for the remaining residential towers at the E end/NE corner of LSE...............I'm not convinced they want some sort of trophy tower at the NE corner - I could be wrong of course - but if they do, I do not see any other scenario other then Magellan needing to go back for a PD amendment and get more sq ft at that time - and thus going directly back on their repeated word this year.............if this is really their plan, then why would they be so adamant right now that they are not going to be asking for an increase? It's not as if the public has been pressuring them on that issue (at least as far as what has been visible to me).............that's why I maintaining I think it's at least 50% as far as probability there is not going to be some sort of trophy/supertall/focal point at the NE................on the other hand, there's also, I suppose a chance they could design some sort of very slender, very tall building for that corner............
They might be throwing caution to the wind for a couple of reasons:

1, just not worrying about being called out a few years down the road, and

2, not having to answer too many questions about what might be blocking Vista's views in the future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 1:34 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
They might be throwing caution to the wind for a couple of reasons:

1, just not worrying about being called out a few years down the road, and

2, not having to answer too many questions about what might be blocking Vista's views in the future
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I think their current strategy makes perfect sense.

It could take another 15-20 years for them to be ready for the NE parcel. At that point they could just sell it to somebody else and let them worry about upzoning, affordable requirements, etc. They will get their money out of LSE one way or the other.

Furthermore I'm not that convinced that the NE parcel is all that desirable anyway. At least I personally wouldn't want to live there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 3:07 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
Furthermore I'm not that convinced that the NE parcel is all that desirable anyway. At least I personally wouldn't want to live there.
I buy a condo in a well-designed architecturally significant supertall with guaranteed lake/river views for eternity. But that's just me...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 9:28 PM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
I buy a condo in a well-designed architecturally significant supertall with guaranteed lake/river views for eternity. But that's just me...
Doubly true for the rich who prioritize the view over the inefficient location (with respect to accessing the whole city easily - half of your vicinity is water), and the same applies to hotel clients who are provided amenities and where the location is more desirable from a tourist's eyes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 11:39 PM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 773
there needs to be an el stop in the new east side area and at navy pier, and the park, and the museum campus.
we should work at removing buses as much as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2015, 12:10 AM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanrule View Post
there needs to be an el stop in the new east side area and at navy pier, and the park, and the museum campus.
we should work at removing buses as much as possible.
A few billion $... and done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 6:42 PM
123fakestreet 123fakestreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 39
...

Last edited by 123fakestreet; Feb 23, 2016 at 6:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 7:49 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by 123fakestreet View Post
Wanda was approved so does that mean the Site O tower shrinks or will it remain the same size?
Remain. Height for site O was originally about 800'.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 7:58 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanrule View Post
there needs to be an el stop in the new east side area and at navy pier, and the park, and the museum campus.
we should work at removing buses as much as possible.
Look up The Loop Connector project.
__________________
* Check out my 2014 - 2016 New Construction building permits map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kXSch1pWpvKw

* Check out my 2015 Chicago conversions, rehabs, and additions map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kyJajGMvzhcE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2017, 5:18 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 9,039
I will bump this 2.5 year old thread because of Hydrogen's post in the

CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7


Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
Exciting news about LSE! I posted the site plan below for reference. Also, some may recall the original proposal for site O. God let's hope they came up with a different design.


Certainly interesting news.
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2017, 4:09 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 655
what's the likely ballpark height calculation based on what's been released
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2017, 6:45 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 330
Well the way the other diagram in the Chicago Highrises thread showed the building sizes relative to lot and with this having 600+apartments and 600+ hotel rooms I could see it being over 700+ feet, especially if it as thin as it appeared. Would be very surprised if it was bigger than 900 feet.
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2017, 6:50 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 144
The notice from the Alderman's letter stated that Parcel O will include up to 640 residential dwelling units and two hotels with up to 626 keys. The original proposal from 2014 or 2015 had a count of 574 apartments and 684 hotel rooms. Seems like the new version will be slightly taller but not much more than the original.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2017, 7:32 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller View Post
The notice from the Alderman's letter stated that Parcel O will include up to 640 residential dwelling units and two hotels with up to 626 keys. The original proposal from 2014 or 2015 had a count of 574 apartments and 684 hotel rooms. Seems like the new version will be slightly taller but not much more than the original.
Which is crazy (and a bit of a shame) given how many units and rooms that is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2017, 7:44 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
Which is crazy (and a bit of a shame) given how many units and rooms that is.
I know, right? Like, how big are those apartments going to be? And the hotel rooms? Optima II (AKA Signature) has about 500 apartments but appears to be much bigger than this thing which somehow crams in an addition 600 hotel rooms. What kind of origami is going on here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2017, 8:06 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Haverford College
Posts: 638
Recall that the Marquee at Block 37 was able to fit 700 units for a 400 ft tower. It wouldn't be too difficult to image a 700 ft tower with 640 units and 626 hotel rooms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:50 AM.

     

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