CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[tennis1400]

Originally Posted by wrab

I just wish that the podium wasn't so darned static.

I think its great to see some sort of activity at this site but I cant help but think that this neighborhood has a sterile vibe to me. This building looks to be just another bland tower that wont create an exciting environment. Whats this area look like in 10-20 years?

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^If the project is as-of-right, what's the point of a presentation? No one can keep them from proceeding as they wish.

So the developer can win points with the local neighborhood aldergoblin so he can continue listening to the neighborhood's concerns, to be transparent with neighbors on developments, to field their questions, incorporate their feedback, for a collaborative, holistic approach to neighborhood relations and development where developers, residents and alderdemons alike can work together to collectively solve seemingly intractable neighborhood problems, to truly feel the neighborhoods' pain and yearning.........and thus the charade of aldermanic prerogative continues virtually unabated....


Nothing is more stomach-turning than when aldermen and developers are trying to sell a development by bragging how much shorter and less dense a proposed development is than what is allowed under current zoning or a previous proposal for the site..........as if what is technically allowed is wrong, inappropriate for the site, and a broader tacit admission that density is a four-letter word, further feeding the gross misperceptions of the friendly neighborhood nimby set..........really nauseating stuff

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by spyguy

In this case I really don't mind. There's no harm in the developer having to go through a PowerPoint for an hour or two so that neighbors know the new plans. It's not like they're going to object to a shorter tower. If anything, the design (especially of the garage) might improve if Related is publicly criticized. And in the process Related might build some goodwill with the community which could come in handy for any future Streeterville projects.

Unrelated bit of news on McHugh's site:
Bid Date Project Name
02.23.2011 360 West Hubbard

IIRC, Habitat was going to develop an ~45 story apartment tower on the East Bank Club's parking lot.

I also saw the 360 Hubbard posting from McHugh, and I immediately thought of that lot............would that be the right address? I pulled it up and it seemed to place the address at an existing building just to the east, but it could of course be wrong.....would be great to see Habitat get moving on a rental tower here......their tower completed maybe 4-5 years or so just to the north of East Bank is decent, but I'd be looking for something even better here........most likely looking at SCB, but I'd like to see a firm like VDT or Perkins & Will maybe given a shot at it....

[ChiTownCity]

^I see two parking lots at that location (one huge, the other on a triangular lot). I'm all for a 45 story building there. who cares what the usage of the building is....

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by spyguy

In this case I really don't mind. There's no harm in the developer having to go through a PowerPoint for an hour or two so that neighbors know the new plans. It's not like they're going to object to a shorter tower. If anything, the design (especially of the garage) might improve if Related is publicly criticized. And in the process Related might build some goodwill with the community which could come in handy for any future Streeterville projects.

SOAR already pushed Hanover to fix their podium, although that project died off.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by wrab

I just wish that the podium wasn't so darned static.

It's not like there's a lack of precedent for decent parking podiums. Has SCB seen Trump? Helmut Jahn's newish high-rise? Marina City is the most obvious example of parking done right. I know some people take issue with 235 Van Buren (I happen to really like it), but even they'd have to appreciate the fact that the podium is integrated into the building's overall profile.

Why does SCB insist on this same scheme over and over again?

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I also saw the 360 Hubbard posting from McHugh, and I immediately thought of that lot............would that be the right address? I pulled it up and it seemed to place the address at an existing building just to the east, but it could of course be wrong

I believe so. That "newish" building's address is 350 W.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^If the project is as-of-right, what's the point of a presentation? No one can keep them from proceeding as they wish.

While allowed as of right under PD 368, the project sits within the Lakefront Protection Zone and the redesign needs to be passed by the Plan Commission. Lakefront Protection Zone approvals are final and legally binding after passage by the Plan Commissioners.

While some may criticize the practice of the LPZ putting as of right development through extra review, it is a double edged sword. The LPZ allows for some design changes to be asked for on the most visible projects along our lakefront. There is a chance that the parking podium design can be softened, whereas the alternative would be building the design as is by just pulling a building permit.

[Mr Downtown]

At least under Daley, lakefront ordinance approval has just meant using two rubber stamps rather than one. Do you ever recall any meaningful debate over the appropriateness of Soldier Field or Navy Pier or the Childrens Museum—much less over the details of parking podiums or other building features?

But ardecila was suggesting this citywide, not just in the lakefront zones. I didn't understand the strange combination of totally eliminating PD review but then requiring a PowerPoint show in a church basement for people (including the alderman) who would have no legal leverage whatsoever over the project.

[ardecila]

The PD process is intended to give the city some measure of control over the function and appearance of buildings that exceed the given zoning, but this introduces two problems.

One, review by the city is not the same as review by the people. The process is, or can be, incredibly opaque until the PD gets presented to City Council.

Two, it incentivizes the city to downzone property often, caving to neighborhood demands while leaving the possibility for denser development via PD. This adds a lot of cost for smaller and/or influential developers, artificially restricting the housing supply.

I would much rather have a city where PDs are incredibly rare outside of the downtown area, the zoning already allowing dense as-of-right development (at least along 1/2-mile corridors). The "neighborhood presentation" would tie into this, giving area residents a regular look into the planned construction around them. (For efficiency, it would probably be a ward-level meeting every two months).

In the downtown area and in visible lakefront locations, the PD process would remain as is, hopefully allowing trained city staff to evaluate the projects to ensure that they add to the city positively and enrich their neighborhoods.

[Mr Downtown]

But what is the point of first upzoning the arterial streets and then showing people the dense development that will be crammed down their throats no matter what they think? That will bring out the torches and pitchforks for sure. Worse, it would increase the pressure on aldermen to spot downzone the sites, find spurious landmark designations, buy the frontage and turn it into senseless parks, throw illegal impediments in the way of the development, etc.

As a matter of principle, I don't care much for the low PD threshold, but it's the only way we can have any sort of urban design review. I think we get a lot out of it through planning staff review, and relatively seldom does it become an aldermanic weapon. The alternatives would be a) to have an architectural review board, which is a recipe for "contextual" mediocrity; or b) to try to write a watertight zoning code, which would be incredibly complex and invite all sorts of gamesmanship. You'd constantly be skirmishing with clever developers and architects who'd find ways to meet the letter of the law but not the intent, harming the city in the process. Exhibit A is the old code's arcade bonus downtown, which gave us pointless arcades on named alleys and others that made the ground floor unusable for retail.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But what is the point of first upzoning the arterial streets and then showing people the dense development that will be crammed down their throats no matter what they think?

It would move the focus of public discussion away from density and towards specific design issues. The portion of the Lincoln Park debacle focusing on truck loading for The Fresh Market was great, and quite productive.

The other portion, in which neighborhood residents got upset at the number of units to be built inside an existing building, was sad and laughable.

That will bring out the torches and pitchforks for sure. Worse, it would increase the pressure on aldermen to spot downzone the sites, find spurious landmark designations, buy the frontage and turn it into senseless parks, throw illegal impediments in the way of the development, etc.

There is definitely potential for abuse here, but I don't see any of the specific things you mention as particularly bad compared to the status quo, which drains neighborhoods of population whether they gentrify or not. Increased use of landmark power can't hurt - I'd much rather see more actual old buildings being saved than (ironically) replaced by new faux-historic ones. More greenspace would be required along major streets if the unit density were to increase. We already have less parkspace per capita than other major cities.

Generally, I think parking requirements should set the maximum density for lots along major arteries. Whatever density the property can support with requiring multi-level parking, and still conform to the city's parking requirements. Those same parking requirements would vanish within a 1/4-mile radius of CTA stations, allowing lakefront-like density levels.

Exhibit A is the old code's arcade bonus downtown, which gave us pointless arcades on named alleys and others that made the ground floor unusable for retail.

Preaching to the choir here... NOLA still has an arcade bonus (although the city now allows a recessed ground floor to be an "arcade" even without the columns)

[Mr Downtown]

^How does having large new projects go through review by planning staffers "drain neighborhoods of population?"

[denizen467]

A flock of Revcons has descended upon the SoNo II site.
Do we get to say the recession is over now?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Nice. Will this officially be high-rise construction start #2 for 2011? Can't remember when the new Ronald McDonald House officially started....

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by denizen467

A flock of Revcons has descended upon the SoNo II site.
Do we get to say the recession is over now?

Are we talking site prep or full blown construction?

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But what is the point of first upzoning the arterial streets and then showing people the dense development that will be crammed down their throats no matter what they think? That will bring out the torches and pitchforks for sure. Worse, it would increase the pressure on aldermen to spot downzone the sites, find spurious landmark designations, buy the frontage and turn it into senseless parks, throw illegal impediments in the way of the development, etc.

As a matter of principle, I don't care much for the low PD threshold, but it's the only way we can have any sort of urban design review. I think we get a lot out of it through planning staff review, and relatively seldom does it become an aldermanic weapon. The alternatives would be a) to have an architectural review board, which is a recipe for "contextual" mediocrity; or b) to try to write a watertight zoning code, which would be incredibly complex and invite all sorts of gamesmanship. You'd constantly be skirmishing with clever developers and architects who'd find ways to meet the letter of the law but not the intent, harming the city in the process. Exhibit A is the old code's arcade bonus downtown, which gave us pointless arcades on named alleys and others that made the ground floor unusable for retail.

The current general system could be kept in place but with much higher and more appropriate PD thresholds (and I guess I need to add there would also need to be a much higher standard for these nonsense mass downzonings of neighborhoods, ie they must stop being used as political tools).....I understand the misgivings of a design review board, as I too could see it opening up a can of unintended consequences.....I think some of this encouragement toward higher quality design might happen administratively behind the scenes with the Planning Department (or whatever the heck they call it these days), and hopefully one under Rahm that has a strong design ethos.................maybe some won't like the suggestion of this almost 'back door' type of approach, isn't it likely already happening to some degree (although of course it's an unenforceable kind of approach in whatever the current form of 'encouragement' toward better deisgn, as would a heightened version)...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Are we talking site prep or full blown construction?

well, i'm sure that by "flock of revcons", denizen is referring to caisson drillers, so proper construction is likely imminent, if not already underway.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Nice. Will this officially be high-rise construction start #2 for 2011? Can't remember when the new Ronald McDonald House officially started....

I believe its actually three, or did Admiral start in December?

[Chicagoguy]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I believe its actually three, or did Admiral start in December?

No I believe you are right. I think construction officially started on The Admiral in the beginning of January.

I am very excited to see Sono II rise. I love to see density going up outside of "downtown". Its the one thing we are missing the boat on compared to NYC. Our transit might not be as extensive as NY but we need to learn to make the most of it and build UP around it. Only in Chicago would there be a grocery store with a large surface parking lot directly off the main transit line...ie Jewel at Clark/Division.