CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction - Page 307

gttx · #**6121** Posted: **Sep 30, 2011, 1:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

I don't think it's ugly (certainly better than the AMLI), and 625 people in the area is nice, but overall it seems to really lack ambition given the size of the lot is has to work with. I mean, seriously, what's up with the *lawn*? And no retail? I understand none on Kingsbury (even though it'd be nice), but not even on Hubbard, where there is already some retail?

Seriously disappointing, overall.

I just don't understand the point of that lawn at the corner. Bring the building out to the corner and hold the street wall! Put a restaurant or some other retail space there....or don't do anything with the space, but don't set the building back 20 feet for no reason. All it will be is a muddy shortcut around that corner.

SamInTheLoop · #**6122** Posted: **Sep 30, 2011, 1:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Good grief, when will this idiocy end?

It will end as soon as 'planning' in this town isn't done by the politicians, but instead an institutionally strong body of planning and urban design professionals.........so in other words, never.

SamInTheLoop · #**6123** Posted: **Sep 30, 2011, 1:38 PM**

I like it overall. One thing that I don't believe has been mentioned is that there's a 15,000 sq ft. public park planned for one of the corners on the site, obviously not visible in the above rendering. No retail even on the first floor of the garage, not even a single small shop seems a little odd..

Is SCB trying to bring back this type of articulation into the facades of residential towers a little bit? (a sharp-angled version of it also in the newly proposed Golub project in Streeterville as well). If so, that's an interesting trend........still not sure how I feel about it though...

Hopefully, Habitat has has/will land their financing so they can launch this in the 4th quarter as planned...

i_am_hydrogen · #**6124** Posted: **Sep 30, 2011, 3:39 PM**

West Loop business owners, residents at odds over Antunovich-designed plan for mixed-use development

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....elopment-.html

Baronvonellis · #**6125** Posted: **Sep 30, 2011, 6:59 PM**

That guy is dumb as bricks. I cant believe he actually wants the west loop to be a sleepy suburb, and didn't expect the empty lots in the west loop to be developed intensely. Why would he move to the west loop of all places in Chicago if he wanted a sleepy area? There are plenty of quiet hoods with an easy commute to the loop if he wanted that. Perhaps, his realtor was too good of a salesman and made it seem like the west loop was the place he had to be.

lawfin · #**6126** Posted: **Sep 30, 2011, 7:24 PM**

^^^Seconded. Or perhaps I should say that is sentiment is foolish. Its really a shame that the west loop didn't develop as a more dense area over the past 10-15 years. WLCO used to have an 8 story limit I believe. And then they complain of area not being vibrant.....well parking podia and 8 stories that's what you get.

I think WLCO has softened its stance as of late...if I am not mistake Eric Sedler isn't in charge anymore....not sure about that though off top of my head.

Maybe this will be start of an emerging highrise section west of Halsted...I would love it

ardecila · #**6127** Posted: **Sep 30, 2011, 8:42 PM**

I believe the guy in the article is now the head of WLCO.

I wonder where he lives? The West Loop contains virtually no purpose-built residential buildings older than about 15 years. It's a converted warehouse district where the process of conversion has always been a work in progress. Plus, I honestly don't think WLCO understands just how difficult it is to build a mid-scaled neighborhood under the Chicago zoning code, which is oriented entirely around the 3-flat and the high-rise.

Real mid-scaled neighborhoods are awesome (I'm living in Rome right now) but they require an intensity and efficiency of land usage that just isn't feasible under the Code as it stands today.

spyguy · #**6128** Posted: **Oct 1, 2011, 9:30 PM**

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...UE01/310019975

Google aims for big office expansion in downtown Chicago
By: Ryan Ori October 03, 2011

A new Google search would set the stage for a big expansion in Chicago by the tech giant.

Google Inc. is looking for up to 350,000 square feet of downtown office space, sources say. Its local representatives have contacted Willis Tower and the Illinois Center, among others, and have talked with developers including Chicago-based John Buck Co. and Hines Interests L.P., which need anchor tenants for new office towers.

...Google also has talked with developers including Hines, which would develop the Kennedy family's Wolf Point parcel along the Chicago River; Buck, for a site at 222 W. Randolph St.; Tishman Speyer Properties L.P. and Henry Crown & Co., which would build at 130 N. Franklin St., and Michael Reschke, who owns a riverside property at 400 W. Randolph St. The developers decline to comment.

BVictor1 · #**6129** Posted: **Oct 1, 2011, 10:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...UE01/310019975

Google aims for big office expansion in downtown Chicago
By: Ryan Ori October 03, 2011

A new Google search would set the stage for a big expansion in Chicago by the tech giant.

Google Inc. is looking for up to 350,000 square feet of downtown office space, sources say. Its local representatives have contacted Willis Tower and the Illinois Center, among others, and have talked with developers including Chicago-based John Buck Co. and Hines Interests L.P., which need anchor tenants for new office towers.

...Google also has talked with developers including Hines, which would develop the Kennedy family's Wolf Point parcel along the Chicago River; Buck, for a site at 222 W. Randolph St.; Tishman Speyer Properties L.P. and Henry Crown & Co., which would build at 130 N. Franklin St., and Michael Reschke, who owns a riverside property at 400 W. Randolph St. The developers decline to comment.

Interesting...

They could also talk to Buck about the site at Lake & Wacker that he was looking into.

If a new office tower is built, Buck would have been wrong as he said at a Crain's event last year that it would be a decade before a new office tower.

Or they could get together with the people who purchased Wrigley. Seeing as they had involvement with Groupon, they could redevelop the site behind Wrigley where the athletic club is currently.

harryc · #**6130** Posted: **Oct 2, 2011, 12:04 AM**

SoNo

StayBridge

harryc · #**6131** Posted: **Oct 2, 2011, 12:13 AM**

Sept 29

Sept 26 - Schmo-Bros in the foreground.

Sept 29

chicubs111 · #**6132** Posted: **Oct 2, 2011, 3:28 AM**

Chicago really needs to pick up the pace of building towers over 500ft again..seems like all of sudden its the invisible statistical barrier that isnt crossed anymore ..NY seems to be building towers way past that mark even now in this depressed economy?

untitledreality · #**6133** Posted: **Oct 2, 2011, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

It will end as soon as 'planning' in this town isn't done by the politicians, but instead an institutionally strong body of planning and urban design professionals.........so in other words, never.

Spot on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Chicago really needs to pick up the pace of building towers over 500ft again

Why exactly? For the sake of it? Height alone means nothing.

chicubs111 · #**6134** Posted: **Oct 2, 2011, 12:53 PM**

For the Sake of enhancing the skyline effect...it seems that biuildings under 500ft , actually under 600ft even more so dont give the same visual "pop" so to stay to the skyline...imagine if he had a hand full of these 400fter that were actually closer to 600fters,,, the skyline would have better proportions and filling..just my opinion..i dont mind shorter building if there quality but it just seems that were struggling to get buildings in that 600 ft range plus ..Chicago needs to start building thinner and taller aptowers instead of this more squaty type designes because the units count can still be the same

ardecila · #**6135** Posted: **Oct 2, 2011, 3:08 PM**

Only a very select few projects have the financial luxury to "make an impact on the skyline". I still don't think Trump's made money.

emathias · #**6136** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 4:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111

For the Sake of enhancing the skyline effect...it seems that biuildings under 500ft , actually under 600ft even more so dont give the same visual "pop" so to stay to the skyline...imagine if he had a hand full of these 400fter that were actually closer to 600fters,,, the skyline would have better proportions and filling..just my opinion..i dont mind shorter building if there quality but it just seems that were struggling to get buildings in that 600 ft range plus ..Chicago needs to start building thinner and taller aptowers instead of this more squaty type designes because the units count can still be the same

Give me Paris over Dubai any day of the g-d week.

Height alone means zip.

What Chicago needs is a dedication to density and street-level sexy.

Dale · #**6137** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Spot on.

Why exactly? For the sake of it? Height alone means nothing.

Yeah, it's not like this is SKYSCRAPERpage or anything like that.

denizen467 · #**6138** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 8:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...UE01/310019975

Google aims for big office expansion in downtown Chicago
By: Ryan Ori October 03, 2011

...

Google Inc. is looking for up to 350,000 square feet of downtown office space, sources say.

Holy smokes. When I first glanced at the headline, I saw the company name "G...." and saw they were looking for 350,000 SF, and at first assumed this was another article about Groupon. But Google looking to add hundreds of employees downtown, and maybe launch another tower, is totally another matter.

Maybe this has to do with relocating Motorola from Libertyville, if their acquisition goes through. I would be doubtful about them moving a lot of Android software people from the Bay Area to Chicago to work with the Motorola hardware people (though any software business in Chicago would be fantastic). But down the line, you can picture Motorola/Google shops, like Apple Stores or the Microsoft Store in Oakbrook, and Chicago would be a good place to roll out a retail chain from.

Or maybe they have a plan to go head to head with Groupon and either want to be able to poach workers right out of Groupon or think Chicago is a perfect location for basing such a business (though I don't know that is a type of business where having ORD/MDW is a critical advantage). I wonder if the company's overall ad sales people are going to come to be based in Chicago.

Normally, you could get some insight from the fact that they're talking with premier developers, about premier locations, about launching a building, and not just soaking up Class B space or going the Fifield route in a new West Loop econo-box. At least in the past, that would probably suggest it's not engineers etc., but more client-facing positions that will go into the new building. But post-internet, engineers and all kinds of positions in leading internet companies get as good treatment as executives etc. used to, so it's harder to tell. Maybe Google is even shooting for a signature/branding building. You know, to show up in Transformers 4 or something, or maybe to announce "Google" to every visitor riding a river tour boat. They could even add a Times-Square-like ticker showing popular searches of the last 15 minutes, etc. Ok, I'll stop fantasizing for now.

Either way, I'm surprised River Bend / 444 Randolph wasn't in the list of towers mentioned. The article link went into a paywall - if anyone has access, maybe some of these questions are addressed there.

ardecila · #**6139** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 9:32 AM**

^^ Google already does have an econobox in River North. It seems like they're looking for something more prestigious.

This is the first I've heard of a proposal for 130 N. Franklin, though. That site's been vacant for years, and it only got worse when they tore down the old Merc.

My preferred scenario is Google partnering with Hines to put up something in the ~750' range at Wolf Point, hopefully with some kind of design strategy that lures people across the Orleans bridge (public garden, restaurant, etc)

chicubs111 · #**6140** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 1:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

Give me Paris over Dubai any day of the g-d week.

Height alone means zip.

What Chicago needs is a dedication to density and street-level sexy.

and you dont think density and street level sexyines can be achieved through taller buiildings?.... I would think that city which invented the skyscraper should be able to achieve both standards