HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

    

1000M in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 12:49 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine View Post
This is crazy. Who the hell are all these people moving into these thousands of new units in all these new buildings? Seriously? I love new skyscrapers as much as the next guy but I get worried about the surplus on the market (not necessarily with the starchitect skyscrapers, but with the mediocre midrises).
Well $3000/mo for an apartment is 30% of a $120,000/yr salary. That's pretty typical income for your techy types whom, up until recently, Chicago has had almost none of. I have a feeling the job creation downtown particularly in tech is driving this. Also remember that there have been a grand total of two luxury condo towers this cycle, both of which are under construction and in the Gold Coast. Assuming we have the same demand for condos downtown that we did in the last boom, we need to build at least 3,000 condos a year for the next few years to even begin to absorb that demand. I have a feeling there are some market forces demanding condo units starting to pent up and they will be released through flashy new towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 12:56 AM
rgolch's Avatar
rgolch rgolch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 743
This is just surreal. I am so stunned about all these recent proposals. I'm so happy I could just puke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 1:07 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,352
Also, I'm not sure I quite understand the massing yet, but I'm looking forward to Jahn schooling BIG and 2 WTC on how to properly design a building that cantilevers outwards as it rises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 1:20 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,489
love the height...but have to wonder - why no questions about the "why" that it is cantilevered like this? seems Wanda caught a heck of a lot more grief for an equally arbitrary design element that doesn't seem to reflect context...

i'm just sayin..bring it on nonetheless!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 1:24 AM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
love the height...but have to wonder - why no questions about the "why" that it is cantilevered like this? seems Wanda caught a heck of a lot more grief for an equally arbitrary design element that doesn't seem to reflect context...

i'm just sayin..bring it on nonetheless!!
I'm holding all judgement until we see actual renderings.
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 1:37 AM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
Wow. It appears as if the entire top of the tower is slightly rotated... AND cantilevered over the building to the south...
Yes. I can't wait to see the renderings! I'm trying to picture it in 3D.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 1:45 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,554
A few more that might help you better visualize the shape/cantilever


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 1:57 AM
wierdaaron's Avatar
wierdaaron wierdaaron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,002
Guys, I'd avoid hyperventilating about this until there's an actual proposal and plans and whatnot. Plans get out for buildings that don't come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 2:05 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
love the height...but have to wonder - why no questions about the "why" that it is cantilevered like this? seems Wanda caught a heck of a lot more grief for an equally arbitrary design element that doesn't seem to reflect context...

i'm just sayin..bring it on nonetheless!!
Neighboring building is part of the project sub area, yet occupied and protected, limiting the footprint of the proposed building. However, as a residential building ascends, so does the price per square foot of the units, and the premium put on lake views, and/or unobstructed views. So it only makes sense to have the floor plates get larger as the building gets taller. Add some deflection so the SW corner units have 'lake views' and you have dramatically increased the estimated return of your building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 2:17 AM
ChiTownWonder's Avatar
ChiTownWonder ChiTownWonder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Orland Park
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchymunch View Post
I'm holding all judgement until we see actual renderings.
same, i normally hate cantilevered buildings... ie. WTC2 and the first nordstrom tower proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 2:26 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
love the height...but have to wonder - why no questions about the "why" that it is cantilevered like this? seems Wanda caught a heck of a lot more grief for an equally arbitrary design element that doesn't seem to reflect context...

i'm just sayin..bring it on nonetheless!!
Wanda caught a lot of heck for poorly conceived rationale of many of the design elements. We haven't heard any rationale from Jahn yet. With 3 decades of solid work under his belt from the Chicago seven to his recent work that is by contrast quite formal I think we can expect this to be quite a bit more thought out than say Bjarke's 2WTC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 2:28 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
If the Calatrava and multiple failed projects of the last decade taught us anything it's I'LL BELIEVE WHEN I SEE IT.

Just saying. I mean, 1,000 feet... in the South Loop? No way. I foresee drastic scaling back on this one after massive opposition.

Far less units, 600 feet, and more parking. Mark my words.

Possibly, but lets also realize that we're dealing with different alderman now.

This is no longer the 2nd Ward and Fioretti isn't around.

Because of gerrymandering, this is the 4th Ward, Will Burns. He's the same guy who got Vue53 through in Hyde Park against the NIMBYs there.

The South Loop now has 3 aldermanic representatives; Dowell, Burns, and Solis.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 2:47 AM
rgolch's Avatar
rgolch rgolch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
If the Calatrava and multiple failed projects of the last decade taught us anything it's I'LL BELIEVE WHEN I SEE IT.

Just saying. I mean, 1,000 feet... in the South Loop? No way. I foresee drastic scaling back on this one after massive opposition.

Far less units, 600 feet, and more parking. Mark my words.
You speak much truth, and I very much agree that I'll believe it when I see it. The only thing I'd say to counter that is that not only are these proposals happening earlier in the cycle of this boom, the last boom was killed by the worst recession in recent history, caused by the subprime mortgage crisis. What's more, the Spire was an insanely ambitious proposal. A tower barely breaking 1000 ft is hardly on par with the Spire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 3:08 AM
wierdaaron's Avatar
wierdaaron wierdaaron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,002
BVic is right, there being three aldermen in the area changes the dynamic. They're all south and southwest side guys who are elected by those neighborhoods and deal with their kind of issues and haven't built a career upon inserting themselves to multi-hundred million dollar construction projects. When I listed to Dowell at these meetings it does not sound like she gives a single shit about the emotional plights of rich prairie-landers the way Reilly has to pretend to for River Northers and the SOAR crowd.

Without that big ego factor from Reilly or Fioretti, maybe these kinds of projects will be able to squeak through without all of the bullshit. Or maybe things will get screwed up because they haven't dealt with things of this scale before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 3:35 AM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 579
What is happening? WOW
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 3:46 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
What is happening? WOW
Video Link
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 3:52 AM
brian_b brian_b is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by wierdaaron View Post
BVic is right, there being three aldermen in the area changes the dynamic. They're all south and southwest side guys who are elected by those neighborhoods and deal with their kind of issues and haven't built a career upon inserting themselves to multi-hundred million dollar construction projects. When I listed to Dowell at these meetings it does not sound like she gives a single shit about the emotional plights of rich prairie-landers the way Reilly has to pretend to for River Northers and the SOAR crowd.

Without that big ego factor from Reilly or Fioretti, maybe these kinds of projects will be able to squeak through without all of the bullshit. Or maybe things will get screwed up because they haven't dealt with things of this scale before.
She sure does care what people think, but you probably missed the way she handled it. You see, she asked the developers when the PD was last amended to allow this development. The developer said 2008, as in, this thing went through when it was part of the 2nd ward. The nimbys had their chance and it was on someone else's watch. If you want to complain about something, complain about something she can do something about.

Oh, and by the way, I noticed that Tina Feldstein of PDNA was at the meeting and said nothing against (or for) any of the developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 4:51 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,905
Chicago's living proof you don't have to be on the East and/or West coast to get high-rise development!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 5:13 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by wierdaaron View Post
BVic is right, there being three aldermen in the area changes the dynamic. They're all south and southwest side guys who are elected by those neighborhoods and deal with their kind of issues and haven't built a career upon inserting themselves to multi-hundred million dollar construction projects. When I listed to Dowell at these meetings it does not sound like she gives a single shit about the emotional plights of rich prairie-landers the way Reilly has to pretend to for River Northers and the SOAR crowd.

Without that big ego factor from Reilly or Fioretti, maybe these kinds of projects will be able to squeak through without all of the bullshit. Or maybe things will get screwed up because they haven't dealt with things of this scale before.

I'll defend SOAR for the most part on this one. They're not the same neighborhood group they were 10 years ago. They're fairly progressive development wise and advocate for the tall and thin.

Remember, they were very pro-Spire. They also have no problem with the height of the Stern proposal. They supported the Waldorf Astoria proposal that would have been 1,200' where the Lowe's currently is.

He definitely kisses the asses of River Northers though...
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 11:58 AM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 939
Yeah SOAR seems ok, but anyway, holy fuckballs! what??? To reiterate the hysterics of the clip WHAT'S HAPPENING????
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 2:44 PM.

     

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