CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[ithakas]

The street level interaction is better than almost anything built downtown, but the tower is a little boring blue glass box / 200 Michigan 2.0 for this prime a site.

Maybe Magellan doesn't want to create competition for Vista so went for the basic tower/rentals instead?

[SpireGuy]

The new tower will block views of the Carbon and Carbide building from North Michigan Ave... Just saying.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by SpireGuy

The new tower will block views of the Carbon and Carbide building from North Michigan Ave... Just saying.

Inb4 Reilly claims that this tower is too tall and attempts to kill this project as well

[nomarandlee]

Michigan and South Water Tower.....

Pretty much the majority sentiment on here about the tower. Very solid tower but a bit bland ho-hum above the stilts. Will likely be glazed well and provide nice context to the buildings surrounding but I can't help but look at towers in Toronto and NYC (Ok, there is simply a lot more money for more unconventional tower constructive in NYC) and want a little more at least in the high-profile lots in the city. Of which this is one of the most prime.

And while not a height junky I do think are a few sites where it would be nice for some taller buildings. Wolk Point being one and River Point another. A very nice building but I can't help but always feel it should be at least a few hundred feet taller given it serves as a visual bookend terminating a major corridor. Similarly, I would prefer if this building was at least a few hundred more feet given its location.

Still, this height/size will be apparent from the Wacker corridor and there is something to be said that about a tower that falls within the C&C and Mather Tower heights one could argue. Hopefully, the massing and glazing of this tower does right by the beautiful pre-war towers it will share its block with.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Michigan and South Water Tower.....

Pretty much the majority sentiment on here about the tower. Very solid tower but a bit bland ho-hum above the stilts. Will likely be glazed well and provide nice context to the buildings surrounding but I can't help but look at towers in Toronto and NYC (Ok, there is simply a lot more money for more unconventional tower constructive in NYC) and want a little more at least in the high-profile lots in the city. Of which this is one of the most prime.

And while not a height junky I do think are a few sites where it would be nice for some taller buildings. Wolk Point being one and River Point another. A very nice building but I can't help but always feel it should be at least a few hundred feet taller given it serves as a visual bookend terminating a major corridor. Similarly, I would prefer if this building was at least a few hundred more feet given its location.

Still, this height/size will be apparent from the Wacker corridor and there is something to be said that about a tower that falls within the C&C and Mather Tower heights one could argue. Hopefully, the massing and glazing of this tower does right by the beautiful pre-war towers it will share its block with.

^ I concur... I hate to get into comparing with other cities but we do tend to do it when things are going well like in the last boom some many years ago stating how we were building or proposed more 1000ft buildings than NYC at that time...anyway presently NYC is building 1000 ft skyscrapers to the ratio we build 500 ft buildings which is crazy..Toronto itself seems to be pushing the height limits on average much more than Chicago as well...I do believe its a philosophy that the alderman and mayor hasn't been enforcing but more deterring it seems.. The late Richard Daley was quite the opposite and encouraged developers for the taller thinner building philosophy over the short fat buildings that Chicago generally tended towards.

[Mr Downtown]

Huh? Setting aside Trump Int'l Hotel and Tower's purely decorative spire—what's an example of a Chicago building that ever got taller and thinner? Yeah, there was an urban designer who had a cup of coffee at DPD and talked about "tall and thin." But I'm not aware of any Chicago developer who ever changed the program or parti for one of his proposed buildings.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Huh? Setting aside Trump Int'l Hotel and Tower's purely decorative spire—what's an example of a Chicago building that ever got taller and thinner? Yeah, there was an urban designer who had a cup of coffee at DPD and talked about "tall and thin." But I'm not aware of any Chicago developer who ever changed the program or parti for one of his proposed buildings.

This was during the first of Chicagos boom in early 2000'-2010... Legacy, columbian, park tower, waldorf astoria, waterview tower never materialized but taller and thin was its motto as well at 150 east Ontario i believe which never materialized as well. Point is there was a trend of taller buildings on average during that decade than shorter squat.

[SolarWind]

May 15, 2017

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Legacy, columbian, park tower, waldorf astoria, waterview tower never materialized but taller and thin was its motto as well at 150 east Ontario i believe which never materialized as well.

So in what way did Mayor Daley encourage any of those buildings to be taller and thinner? The Columbian, in fact, his Plan Commissioner got shortened by several stories to try to keep it from overwhelming the Michigan Boulevard Streetwall.

Otherwise, the buildings you mention were ones their developers proposed at the heights for which they were approved. No one in the city negotiated them taller—and certainly not thinner.

And don't you think the developers took an important lesson from the fact that "they never materialized?" A lesson that it's better to build three 40-story projects during a cycle than try to finance and finish two 60-story buildings and get caught out?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So in what way did Mayor Daley encourage any of those buildings to be taller and thinner? The Columbian, in fact, his Plan Commissioner got shortened by several stories to try to keep it from overwhelming the Michigan Boulevard Streetwall.

Otherwise, the buildings you mention were ones their developers proposed at the heights for which they were approved. No one in the city negotiated them taller—and certainly not thinner.

And don't you think the developers took an important lesson from the fact that "they never materialized?" A lesson that it's better to build three 40-story projects during a cycle than try to finance and finish two 60-story buildings and get caught out?

How tall was the south Grant Park street wall intended to be in the so called 'South Loop Plan'? How tall did they end up being?

[KWILLSKYLINE]

How Have I completly forgot about this project? 145 wells. Too much going on at once? Trick question. Never too much, keep the boom a boomin Thanks for the update solar.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

How tall was the south Grant Park street wall intended to be in the so called 'South Loop Plan'? How tall did they end up being?

The Near South Community Plan prescribes a maximum height of 425 feet (with upper floor setback above 280 feet). Is that what you're asking?

The Columbian is 517 feet. I'm not sure what was originally proposed, but Commissioner Berg reportedly knocked "three or four stories" off the height. Since she had come out of the Landmarks Division, I think she wanted to get it down to 425 but was under a lot of pressure from the mayor's office to maximize how much the city would get for the land. That points up the eternal conflict with having the same city agency handling both regulation and redevelopment.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

May 15, 2017

Por que?

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Por que?

I don't think they're gonna build a 20 story cinder block building.
Judging by the plastic on the wall, I think the adjacent building is taking advantage of the garage demo to do repairs to their wall.

[gebs]

For those of you who like comprehensive crane shots, this post by Daniel Schell is construction catnip: link. He went to the Sears Tower Skydeck and found every crane he could. Quite the summary of (most) everything going on right now.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So in what way did Mayor Daley encourage any of those buildings to be taller and thinner? The Columbian, in fact, his Plan Commissioner got shortened by several stories to try to keep it from overwhelming the Michigan Boulevard Streetwall.

Otherwise, the buildings you mention were ones their developers proposed at the heights for which they were approved. No one in the city negotiated them taller—and certainly not thinner.

And don't you think the developers took an important lesson from the fact that "they never materialized?" A lesson that it's better to build three 40-story projects during a cycle than try to finance and finish two 60-story buildings and get caught out?

I never said Mayor Daley specifically told each developer of those project to increase there height!..I said Daley was speaking in general terms for development for projects in the downtown area to be taller and thinner...kind of like how there was hopes of developers in river north to use more glass instead of beige...Daley was basically voicing his opinion in hopes that the Alderman would hear and when a taller development came in front of them to approve, they will be less likely try knock it down... I can tell you during that boom there was alot less alderman interjection than what we see now aka what Reilly has done. Also with regards to financing, Waterview tower could of easily been built at its original height if a more seasoned developer was working on it, that was a very viable project

[emathias]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I never said Mayor Daley specifically told each developer of those project to increase there height!..I said Daley was speaking in general terms for development for projects in the downtown area to be taller and thinner...kind of like how there was hopes of developers in river north to use more glass instead of beige...Daley was basically voicing his opinion in hopes that the Alderman would hear and when a taller development came in front of them to approve, they will be less likely try knock it down... I can tell you during that boom there was alot less alderman interjection than what we see now aka what Reilly has done. Also with regards to financing, Waterview tower could of easily been built at its original height if a more seasoned developer was working on it, that was a very viable project

Reilly "interjects" as much as he does because that's the platform he ran on to get elected.

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by emathias

Reilly "interjects" as much as he does because that's the platform he ran on to get elected.

Can we just get Burt Natarus to run again?:
• Video Link

[SteelMonkey]

[QUOTE=ChickeNES;7807201]Can we just get Burt Natarus to run again?:

So good.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Is that so? 475' if you want to get technical.

How do people feel about facadism in Chicago?