HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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



Grant Park 3 in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 7:12 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,955
CHICAGO | Grant Park 3 & 4 | (3) 790' - 73 FLOORS | (4) 900' - 83 FLOORS NEVER BUILT

I decided to form a new thread for the 2 Grant Park Towers. There's no need to cram all the information on these buildings into the One Museum Park thread.








__________________
titanic1

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 30, 2007 at 1:45 AM.
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 2:38 AM
SlatsGrobnik SlatsGrobnik is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 215
Back from the meeting. They showed a rendering of Tower 3-the one we've seen before, 790'. No renderings yet for Tower 4; I asked about when that tower would be designed, and was given a figure of 18 months.

Very little new information, and many, many vapid comments about how Fulton (sp?) has to do something about the parking situation, the traffic situation, project safety, overcrowding in general, the flow of winds around the neighborhood in general (not his buildings in particular), and a host of other things that he has nothing to do with.

Fulton kept explaining over and over that thinner, taller towers are less crowded and let in more light. Bob O'Neill actually did a very nice job of explaining that residential towers have very little to do with traffic--it is the retail and attractions in the vicinity of residential towers that are the sources of traffic.

After an hour and a half of listening to inane NWAs (NIMBYs with attitude), I was either going to vomit or walk out, so I walked out.

Nice-ish building; horrible meeting.
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 2:51 AM
SNT1 SNT1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 177
noooo, NIMBYs... bad news
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 3:15 AM
alex alex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 24
They also showed new pictures of the south and east elevations of GP3. They stated that there would be comercial spaces in both GP3 an GP4. They appear to be very serious about marketing GP3 starting next year and GP4 about 2009. They also have the plans to cover the railroad tracks but is up to the city to come up with the money. They apperently have plans to cover the tracks north of Macormick Place and to build highrises over the tracks. All the buildings along the south wall of Grant Park apparently have the blessing of the city, they just want permission to add ten floors to each of them and make them taller.
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 3:25 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlatsGrobnik View Post
NWAs (NIMBYs with attitude)
Wow, an acronym involving an acronym, isn't that a derivative? You know, X^2= 2X, N^WA=NIMBY(with attitude)? Mathmatical analogies anyone? Haha, sorry...
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 3:34 AM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 611
It was a pretty good meeting actually. Nothing terribly exciting was revealed, except perhaps that there will be retail in the bases of these towers.

Five-O (Alderman Bob) was late, and off his game a bit when he did show up. I didn't get the sense that he was going to put up any opposition to this request for an administrative change on height. Being a good pol he listened carefully to all of the bleating. But at the end he commented that he wanted "a skyline that'll knock your socks off". Somewhat comforting to hear.

The NIMBY contingent was in force but actually pretty tame compared to other South Loop meetings I've been to lately. The Prairie Avenue cranks who showed up went into their usual feedback loop on parking and "congestion". They don't hold a candle to the Dearborn Park kooks, who blessedly stayed home tonight.
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 3:39 AM
Knightwing's Avatar
Knightwing Knightwing is offline
Unregistered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Wow, an acronym involving an acronym, isn't that a derivative? You know, X^2= 2X, N^WA=NIMBY(with attitude)? Mathmatical analogies anyone? Haha, sorry...
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 3:43 AM
Adam186's Avatar
Adam186 Adam186 is offline
Condo Projects Manager
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha + Chicago, Sky High
Posts: 469
Ahhh, I love this forum. I wish my real friends were like you guys. So many one liners and inside jokes.
__________________
Omaha Evolution
Trump Tower Chicago Webcam New working link
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 3:46 AM
Sir Isaac Newton Sir Isaac Newton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNT1 View Post
noooo, NIMBYs... bad news
There were a few NIMBY's there - one who complained that it is difficult for visitors to find street parking when they are visiting him, one who complained that the South Loop is getting too congested, one who complained about shadows in Grant Park, one who complained about project safety, one who complained about large vacuums of winds in the area due to highrises and asked if they had done a "wind study", and an old lady who complained about birds dying from flying into skyscrapers.

However, the majority of the people there seemed to be in favor of the project. And since the developer wasn't asking for more units, but only to build a taller but thinner building, none of the complaints that were voiced were even relevant to the developer's request and the purpose of the meeting. Many people praised the design of the building and voiced their support for tall and thin buildings while no one argued against tall and thin buildings or the increased height of the building (although Fioretti refused to give a response to an audience member who asked him if he preferred tall and thin or medium sized and squat). Pretty much, the only times people applauded was after someone voiced an opinion in favor of the building and the height increase. The biggest round of applause was for Bob O'Neill, who gave a passionate speech in favor of the proposed building and framing the south side of Grant Park with tall and thin and environmentally sound buildings.

Overall, I am pretty optimistic that the proposed increase in height will be allowed.
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 3:54 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
There were a few NIMBY's there - one who complained that it is difficult for visitors to find street parking when they are visiting him, one who complained that the South Loop is getting too congested, one who complained about shadows in Grant Park, one who complained about project safety, one who complained about large vacuums of winds in the area due to highrises and asked if they had done a "wind study", and an old lady who complained about birds dying from flying into skyscrapers.

However, the majority of the people there seemed to be in favor of the project. And since the developer wasn't asking for more units, but only to build a taller but thinner building, none of the complaints that were voiced were even relevant to the developer's request and the purpose of the meeting. Many people praised the design of the building and voiced their support for tall and thin buildings while no one argued against tall and thin buildings or the increased height of the building (although Fioretti refused to give a response to an audience member who asked him if he preferred tall and thin or medium sized and squat). Pretty much, the only times people applauded was after someone voiced an opinion in favor of the building and the height increase. The biggest round of applause was for Bob O'Neill, who gave a passionate speech in favor of the proposed building and framing the south side of Grant Park with tall and thin and environmentally sound buildings.

Overall, I am pretty optimistic that the proposed increase in height will be allowed.
Sounds like there are either lots of people who agree with the majority opinion on this forum or there were lots of fourmers there. Also, it sounds as if the bird lady was there. She's at every meeting to remind people of the birds!
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 4:06 AM
cbotnyse cbotnyse is offline
Chicago Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: River North, Chicago
Posts: 1,637
I really get a kick out of the NIMBY stories. It never ceases to amaze me how they can find anything to complain about. This is urban living! Move to the suburbs already people!
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 4:08 AM
sale sale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15
BVic was at the meeting with his camera. Expect some photos of some new angles. Good looking building overall. Crazy people, though.
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 5:17 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,546
so we're looking at 890' and 1000' then.

Thats good news.

Thanks to all ov you for your reports!
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 5:27 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ I think Slats and BVic have indicated that the revised height would bring the third tower to 790'. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation.
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 5:34 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
^^^ That's what I thought too, hopefully I am wrong!
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 8:35 AM
Dr. Taco Dr. Taco is offline
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 92626
Posts: 3,753
Wow, I've never heard nimby's in person, and, while they were amusing at first, I can't believe how annoying and persistent they were! but they could have been worse, I suppose.

anyway, not much new information, but a few notes none-the-less

- early next year, plans will be revealed for a plan to cover the tracks from Roosevelt to McCormick place with parkland. The developers do not own the land anymore, however, so its up to the Chicago to actually fund the parkland. But plans are a good step forward

- After all is said and done, the southern tip of Grant Park is going to be re-landscaped to better match the 4 towers they're building

- The heights they want are 790' and 900' for GP3 and GP4. From the earlier versions, the number or residences and the basic total square footage will not change. Only the number of stories will be different (+10 stories each)

- The above point was the whole point of the meeting. Hence, it really wasn't a good meeting, since there wasn't much to talk about. Fioretti kept asking the developers to clarify exactly what was different between this proposal and the last, and they were kind of vague about it. Since the point of the meeting was about the change, I was expecting at least a comparison powerpoint slide between the old and new version. anyway

- There will be a 30,000 sq ft recreation floor in GP3

- There is no design yet for GP4. the elevations we have seen are basically a placeholder for what the final height will be. Or so they told the congregation...


Thats about it. I hope BVictor does add more info or clarifies later. and adds pictures. The color rendering of GP3 was really nice.
I was hoping to stick around and ask Fioretti about Park Michigan, but I got bored and left before the meeting was over

GOODnight
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 11:29 AM
museumparktom museumparktom is offline
Chicagotom SSC
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 438
Thanks jstush04. I would be interested in where these NYMBY nut-jobs were from. DP, PR, PA or MP? Regardless I doubt that Fioretti or his Shock-troops can derail these two.

The covered Metra tracks are always such a tease. Everybody wants them but paying for them will be big issue. The developer(s) have never actually owned the air rights. The City always has and the deal was that the developer(s) were going to pony up 50% to put the park and then get public access on 13th and 18th as well as private access to OMP1, MP4 and a few others that sit on the Metra tracks. Anyone have pics of the new Roosevelt Station progress. That was one of the pieces that was holding the covered phase up.

Was there any discussion of retail along Roosevelt or Michigan Ave? BVic Post.
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 11:34 AM
SlatsGrobnik SlatsGrobnik is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
so we're looking at 890' and 1000' then.
Definitely not. The requested change is to allow tower 3 to go to 790' (and eventually tower 4 to 900').
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 12:00 PM
museumparktom museumparktom is offline
Chicagotom SSC
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 438
Retail question answered - sorry
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 1:10 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 10,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstush04
- early next year, plans will be revealed for a plan to cover the tracks from Roosevelt to McCormick place with parkland. The developers do not own the land anymore, however, so its up to the Chicago to actually fund the parkland. But plans are a good step forward
^ You know, I seems it would make more sense for the city would prioritize covering the tracks in Grant Park instead of in the area east of Central Station.

I would even venture to say that the area east of Central Station might as well keep its tracks uncovered. If you look at how Central Station development has treated its eastern face, I'm not too sure a lot of people will want to see it so openly. I'm not sure podiums and blank walls will look good in front of a park
__________________
If God is your imaginary friend, so be it. But don't try to make him mine.
     
     
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 2:57 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.