HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive

    

740 North Rush in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 3:15 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 12,616
^ Why would they host a community presentation if this weren't a real proposal
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 4:23 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,684
^ Well, not real perhaps in the sense that it has no 'real' chance of happening.....Timeshares? Seriously?? What is this, suburban Orlando, 1997?
Or, it's to throw out something that is just too tall for the NIMBYs so they will accept something similar to the earlier proposal......I hope!!
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 4:23 PM
FlashingLights FlashingLights is offline
Chicago Kid
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL, St. Charles, IL
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
this is some 80s corporate bullshit look. would rather have the rowhouses than this
signed
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 4:51 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
It looks shorter than 725' in that rendering.
I was thinking the same thing. The Fordham is 575' and they rendered the new proposal at more or less the same height--if not slightly lower.
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 11:14 PM
Halsted & Villagio Halsted & Villagio is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashingLights View Post
signed
Keep the row homes. We are losing too much character in Chicago. This building is dime a dozen and looks very Dallas.

.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 11:55 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
^ Well, not real perhaps in the sense that it has no 'real' chance of happening.....Timeshares? Seriously?? What is this, suburban Orlando, 1997?
Or, it's to throw out something that is just too tall for the NIMBYs so they will accept something similar to the earlier proposal......I hope!!
Come on now Sam, you know why they are selling time shares... Winter is coming. That's the kind of behavior you expect when things get frothy. The stupid people are looking forward to get bent.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 12:55 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,488
^A rep from Hilton's timeshare division, Hilton Grand Vacations Club, recently told me they're going to be expanding into the Chicago market. Perhaps this is it.
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 1:31 PM
stylusx stylusx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
It's the taxes, stupid...

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
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.
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 2:16 PM
Halsted & Villagio Halsted & Villagio is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 24
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.

.
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 2:20 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
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.
It's funny that you started off talking about taxes but then spent most of your post talking about cars.

Here's the deal. This area is lousy with parking lots. It's also a major tourist destination. Those are the things causing traffic in the area and this or any tower does nothing to hurt or help the "traffic problem." We're talking about a few hundred residences near a major transit stop and a couple of hundred time shares and hotels that will bring in people that want to be within walking distance of all that shopping. It's total NIMBY bs to say that a tower is going to cause a traffic nightmare when one already exists. If you don't like to drive in the area, then take a walk. I get wherever I want to go in River North in no time on my on two feet.
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 2:51 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,251
"WE NEED MORE PARKING"

"THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO CAUSE GRIDLOCK"

Two totally diametric statements. More parking = more gridlock. Also more Uber = less Gridlock and less parking. I can't believe that SIX whole uber cars once crossed the street in a row. It reminds me of the time that I saw TEN whole taxi cabs in a row in NYC! The horror!



This is a city, there are going to be back ups when you put in four way stop signs (let's talk about the absurdity of that for a second, what other massive metropolitan area has a whole district of stop signs one block off it's main shopping strip?). If you build more parking, that makes driving more convenient than walking or taking transportation. That means that as you add more parking you will see more cars on the street until the point at which the added convenience of more parking is outweighed by the inconvenience of the additional traffic. One way to deal with this problem is to have vehicles for hire patrolling the area delivering the convenience of a car without the hassle of driving one yourself. This is why taxis and ubers exist. The difference being that Ubers are directed by machine learning that routes them around obstructions and to the areas of greatest need. That is infinitely better than hordes of taxis wandering the city willy nilly hoping to see someone flailing their arms like an idiot trying to flag them down. Most uber's I've seen actually find a place to pull over while they are waiting for a request or wait in place wherever they dropped off their last ride rather than roam around burning fuel. Though with Uber it also seems like they are almost always immediately called to the next rider. Again, this means that their total fare efficiency is much higher than cabs which often drive around totally empty creating traffic. Ubers are almost constantly full meaning fewer drivers filling more transportation needs. That means less traffic in the aggregate.

PS: This building is ass ugly and should not be allowed to replace the historic lowrises.
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 3:35 PM
ChiHi's Avatar
ChiHi ChiHi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
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.
I'm reading this as "I don't want to change my lifestyle so therefore the city is not allowed to move forward or grow."
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 3:42 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Come on now Sam, you know why they are selling time shares... Winter is coming. That's the kind of behavior you expect when things get frothy. The stupid people are looking forward to get bent.

True - though this might be something you'd expect to see once the for-sale/condo market starts to get frothy locally (such as in the 00's boom, when you saw Several of those silly "condo hotels" pop-up.....aside - I'll never forget Peter Dumon's quote about that investment model/product type in a Crain's article a decade ago: "It's a business that is dependent on a moron buying your unit." Priceless, and wholly accurate.......), of which we are definitely not dealing with today - I don't think anyone would call today's downtown condo market frothy.....in fact I think it has plenty of runway remaining for solid if unspectacular growth.....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 6:39 PM
XIII's Avatar
XIII XIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 255
Here's the prior SOM proposal, for reference
__________________
"Chicago would do big things. Any fool could see that." - Ernest Hemingway
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 6:46 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,684
^ So, so, so, so superior.....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 7:36 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 905
yes that please but 650'
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 7:41 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 637
no more podiums period
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 1:58 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,468
No more six ubers crossing michigan in one light...

The madness!!!! We must put this to a stop:
- support cab monopoly and awful service, and 100k barrier to entry for shields
- do not allow people to drive on the roads they pay for
- remove this hand-up private program that puts people to work and supplements income

Then, and only then, will we be able to stop the city from changing and growing

PS - this is an ugly ass building, as rendered
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 1:05 PM
stylusx stylusx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
This isn't growth....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiHi View Post
I'm reading this as "I don't want to change my lifestyle so therefore the city is not allowed to move forward or grow."
This building wouldn't represent growth or moving forward. The same proposal has been made at least three times, always involved tearing down the row houses (some of which are architecturally significant) and putting up a cookie-cutter glass tower. Not all buildings are progress. There might be a place for this design, but only if it improves the area. That community meeting will be packed with residents of the Fordham, 30 E. Huron, and others that will be negatively impacted.
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 2:33 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 601
stylusx, why do you bother? You have been an occasional NIMBY presence on these threads since 2007 and have consistently spewed the most ignorant opinions which have never been well received and have been consistently, and repeatedly, knocked down...

clearly you live in this neighborhood because you have never contributed to a discussion in any other... the NIMBY trolling is just so tiresome
     
     
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 > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:21 PM.

     

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