HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 7:07 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,583
@ardecila ...I'd argue that chicago has created the ability for new midrise neighborhoods with the TOD zoning. that enables 12 stories (see division and ashland) with low parking...get enough of that within 1/4 of transit stations and we get a string of pearls.

that said...totally agree that the spread of 'middle ground' (not highrise, not SFH or even 3 flat) zoning is needed...as the downtown footprint expands, so should the footprint of midrise / TOD zoning expand into the neighborhood edges
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 7:08 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I still think this doesn’t belong here. The podium is admittedly well-designed, with an attractive facade and no parking visible (looks like a bit of office space as a liner).

However, I think it’s too important for Chicago to have a bonafide midrise neighborhood, with 2-4 story buildings mixed in. The city even put in the planning effort to make that happen. For various reasons, we’re unlikely to build this kind of environment anywhere else for the foreseeable future... Dearborn Park forced the South Loop into a total highrise development pattern, and River North/Streeterville are already full of highrises. Industrial areas along the river could be developed as midrise, but those areas have large lots and a very flawed street grid so they’ll never develop the same urban patterns.

What they should do is move this one to the Randolph/Halsted site behind Haymarket, as a proper architectural beacon for the main “entrance” of West Loop.
That ship has sailed. You can really only hope to slow this growth and development towards this neighborhood having an average height of 200-300 feet for buildings. We should take the good designs when we get them I say.
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 7:13 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
@ardecila ...I'd argue that chicago has created the ability for new midrise neighborhoods with the TOD zoning. that enables 12 stories (see division and ashland) with low parking...get enough of that within 1/4 of transit stations and we get a string of pearls.

that said...totally agree that the spread of 'middle ground' (not highrise, not SFH or even 3 flat) zoning is needed...as the downtown footprint expands, so should the footprint of midrise / TOD zoning expand into the neighborhood edges
Not really, TOD zoning only applies along commercial corridors outside of downtown. Residential blocks are still sacrosanct, which means even TOD zoning can only theoretically increase the overall density of a neighborhood by 15-20%. Plus, that's offset against the deconversion phenomenon in places like Lakeview, Wicker, Logan so it's debatable whether we get much of a density increase at all.

TOD zoning is really only enough for a neighborhood to hold its ground, population-wise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
That ship has sailed. You can really only hope to slow this growth and development towards this neighborhood having an average height of 200-300 feet for buildings. We should take the good designs when we get them I say.
I'm not following you. Where is there a building taller than 200' in the West Loop, excluding the boundary areas along Halsted and south of Van Buren? Even the H2O development tops out at 180' to the roofline - admittedly this stretches the definition of midrise and it's a hair taller than I'd prefer for this area, but still a tiny fraction of the 900 W Randolph behemoth.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Jan 31, 2018 at 7:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 7:27 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,583
^ right, but most central El stations are along commercial corridors...and zoning code can be updated - chicago is oddly new to the TOD zoning (though it was also probably the unintentional originator!) ... these things can be changed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 7:51 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,423
If all we are doing is treading water by building TOD in Logan Square, then surely the same applies here where you have lowrise historic district mixed with midrises. There is an upper limit to how much density that fabric allows and the West Loop is approaching that. If this is going to become an office district, it's going to need residential density too or we will just end up with another Loop, bustling during the day, dead at night. Or we can build a whole new neighborhood from scratch that preserves old historic industrial buildings and makes room for both new commercial and residential density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 8:02 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I still think this doesn’t belong here. The podium is admittedly well-designed, with an attractive facade and no parking visible (looks like a bit of office space as a liner).

However, I think it’s too important for Chicago to have a bonafide midrise neighborhood, with 2-4 story buildings mixed in. The city even put in the planning effort to make that happen. For various reasons, we’re unlikely to build this kind of environment anywhere else for the foreseeable future... Dearborn Park forced the South Loop into a total highrise development pattern, and River North/Streeterville are already full of highrises. Industrial areas along the river could be developed as midrise, but those areas have large lots and a very flawed street grid so they’ll never develop the same urban patterns.

What they should do is move this one to the Randolph/Halsted site behind Haymarket, as a proper architectural beacon for the main “entrance” of West Loop.
I agree with this except that it should be a midrise district bounded by high rises along Lake, Halsted, Ike and Ashland. They could throw in contributions to transit funding for height bumps because of their transit adjacencies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 8:29 PM
donnie's Avatar
donnie donnie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 378
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 8:29 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,803
I see no reason for not allowing high density along the Green Line (or the Blue Line along the Ike for that matter). Chicago needs a lot more TOD development. As someone said above, we were a bit late to the game. No need to squander perfectly good developments near L stations. That will boost CTA ridership and take cars off the streets. A win-win.

A big and dense project will then also alleviate demand and pressure to redevelop existing lower density buildings, many which are historic and would be a shame to lose. Better to allow a half dozen tall and dense projects on a few lots, than leveling entire blocks of historic 4 to 5 story buildings and replacing them with new 8 to 10 story buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 8:37 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,251
^TBH, the valuable thing about the West Loop is the scale of buildings and the consistency of certain architectural elements (brick, timber, sidewalk canopies, etc). Not individual buildings. I don't shed a tear losing a 3-story warehouse or a one-story bowtruss for an 8-story building if the replacement is designed well and fits into context.

TOD is obviously a noble goal but let's be realistic, anybody moving to the West Loop is already going to take transit or walk/bike to work, assuming the job is downtown. Nobody except the richest, most reclusive executives would drive 1 mile through rush hour traffic to get to their workplace. The whole neighborhood is TOD, so any growth on any site is going to reinforce transit ridership. I don't see why we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and allow a 600-foot tower in the name of TOD.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 8:42 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by donnie View Post
Love the pulled back skyline shot. I'm curious how it would look from a north or south perspective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 9:08 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I'm not following you. Where is there a building taller than 200' in the West Loop, excluding the boundary areas along Halsted and south of Van Buren? Even the H2O development tops out at 180' to the roofline - admittedly this stretches the definition of midrise and it's a hair taller than I'd prefer for this area, but still a tiny fraction of the 900 W Randolph behemoth.
I wasn't super clear. The trend in the West Loop is very clear. As the lots run out along the Kennedy but the demand remains the same for people to live there, then taller proposals will continue to creep further and further inland. It's just a natural progression. 10 years ago the tallest proposals were 80 feet tall in the West Loop(outside of the Kennedy line), and now we've reached 180 feet. 10 Years from now I fully expect 300 feet to be a common occurrence. By "ship has sailed", I meant the momentum is taking this thing in a certain direction whether you like it or now.

You can accelerate this timeline greatly if Chicago somehow manages to snap Apple or Amazon.
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 9:35 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
I wasn't super clear. The trend in the West Loop is very clear. As the lots run out along the Kennedy but the demand remains the same for people to live there, then taller proposals will continue to creep further and further inland. It's just a natural progression. 10 years ago the tallest proposals were 80 feet tall in the West Loop(outside of the Kennedy line), and now we've reached 180 feet. 10 Years from now I fully expect 300 feet to be a common occurrence. By "ship has sailed", I meant the momentum is taking this thing in a certain direction whether you like it or now.

You can accelerate this timeline greatly if Chicago somehow manages to snap Apple or Amazon.
Your supposed fait accompli of "natural progression" only accounts for the developer perspective. You're forgetting that there are other parties involved that shape the finished product, and the precedent so far is that they're the more influential force.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 5:08 PM
vandelay vandelay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 829
Surprising amount of NIMBYism from the Chicago contingent here.
__________________
This is the Age of Durex!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 5:55 PM
Siriusly Siriusly is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
Surprising amount of NIMBYism from the Chicago contingent here.
If you read here often enough it's not "surprising" at all. This building is lovely and should gain approval as is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 7:09 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
Related Midwest + Tucker Development
Stantec is AOR

300 units, condos
10 buildings preserved and restored
Retail at ground level
570'/51 floors
300 parking
Targeting LEED Gold
Bonus payment of ~$4.9 million
60 minimum affordable units

15' tower setback from Peoria (above podium)
4 story podium with terrace, podium aligns to streetwall. All active space hiding parking
Steel, aluminum brick and glass exterior
Emphasis on depth in facade

Taller and thinner to maximize solar access
Active use would be streetside only, correct? If I am seeing the rendering correctly, looks like three sides of high exposed walls
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 7:43 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
Surprising amount of NIMBYism from the Chicago contingent here.
It’s not NIMBYism when I don’t live in the West Loop.

I’m not against more development in the West Loop, and I certainly want more people walking around and even more traffic, but I just think development needs to occur within the midrise paradigm. Make West Loop look like inner Washington DC, but with better architecture. A height limit (be it official or unofficial) encourages more efficient use of space, minimal parking, and smaller more efficient residential layouts, in addition to the other benefits I listed before.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 7:55 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It’s not NIMBYism when I don’t live in the West Loop.

I’m not against more development in the West Loop, and I certainly want more people walking around and even more traffic, but I just think development needs to occur within the midrise paradigm. Make West Loop look like inner Washington DC, but with better architecture. A height limit (be it official or unofficial) encourages more efficient use of space, minimal parking, and smaller more efficient residential layouts, in addition to the other benefits I listed before.
But I’m not sure this is happening in the West Loop. As I’ve said before, in Chicago, midrises mean ground level parking with opaque windows at the sidewalk. We rarely do underground parking like DC does.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 8:24 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,436
For all intents and purposes, the west loop goes all the way out to the United Center. (That will be even more true once the Damen station is open and the Green line is more effective).
So there is plenty of land there for midrises. And all the new midrise construction is going to be there for decades. I fail to see how a building east of Morgan, three blocks from the Kennedy, is destroying the midrise nature of the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 10:44 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
For all intents and purposes, the west loop goes all the way out to the United Center. (That will be even more true once the Damen station is open and the Green line is more effective).
So there is plenty of land there for midrises. And all the new midrise construction is going to be there for decades. I fail to see how a building east of Morgan, three blocks from the Kennedy, is destroying the midrise nature of the area.
This.

Several tall buildings in a mostly midrise neighborhood does not ruin the aesthetics of that neighborhood. If anything, its beneficial because it soaks up demand, alleviating pressure to demolish historic 4 or 5 story warehouses for 6 to 8 story developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 10:49 PM
KWillChicago's Avatar
KWillChicago KWillChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 628
Rahm still wants to turn that whole parking lot jungle next to the UC into a mini Staples area like in LA. Hotels, Resteraunt s, Bars...etc. Im sure we coud fit some highrises towers over there.

Last edited by KWillChicago; Feb 2, 2018 at 11:40 PM.
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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.