CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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)

I'd actually rather see them anchor the 200 N Riverside Site, which was a big loss imo, or 400 W Randolph. There is a lot that fits imo. Its about the right height, great location and views, the proposed hotel tower next door would be an asset, its also part of an urban renewal project, it was sexy architecture with a solid developer who had tenants waiting for the site.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

This is just ridiculous. General Growth is not selling their office building and will squat on it at least until the economy recovers.

Howard Hughes Corporation actually owns the building after they were spun off. GGP has a long term lease but HHC mentioned possibly redeveloping the building in the future.

Anyway, I'm surprised Google isn't looking at the IBM Building. Very close to their existing office with all of the same amenities, possible naming rights, high visibility (imagine a Google logo right on the river), new hotel in the building, lots of empty space.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Howard Hughes Corporation actually owns the building after they were spun off. GGP has a long term lease but HHC mentioned possibly redeveloping the building in the future.

Anyway, I'm surprised Google isn't looking at the IBM Building. Very close to their existing office with all of the same amenities, possible naming rights, high visibility (imagine a Google logo right on the river), new hotel in the building, lots of empty space.

AND very very fitting - out with Big Blue - in with Big Gooo

[nicksplace27]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Howard Hughes Corporation actually owns the building after they were spun off. GGP has a long term lease but HHC mentioned possibly redeveloping the building in the future.

Anyway, I'm surprised Google isn't looking at the IBM Building. Very close to their existing office with all of the same amenities, possible naming rights, high visibility (imagine a Google logo right on the river), new hotel in the building, lots of empty space.

Is it 350000 square feet? Does it provide ample room for google to grow? As much as I love IBM, I don't think it would fit google's criteria for the massive office needs they are going to have. They've gone to all the big players, like the Illinois Center and the Willis Tower; which would provide them with the growth capacity they need. Don't worry I see some nice law firms or architecture firms locating there.

I hope they do new construction. They need to do something vertically kickass. Apple's headquarters in Cupertino will be overshadowed if Groupon or Google do something exceptional with thier workplaces. Goodbye urban sprawl, hello tech urbanist revolution.

BTW when will that hotel start construction? I want a cool modernist resturant in the lobby; with Mies Van Der Roche chairs to drink tea in.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Eww no restaurant in the lobby of IBM PLEASE! That is not a space to be trashed by divisions and clutter. It is meant to be a seamless continuation of the plaza outside. Filling it with a restaurant would simply ruin the entire building.


IBM building would be plenty big for Google. In fact, according to what is currently listed, IBM would be a nearly perfect fit for this requirement.

The largest contiguous space listed in the building is 371,000 SF and the total space available is 659,000. The total size of the office portion of the building is 1,141,760 which is fare more that Google will ever likely need. They could probably snag that 371,000 SF space and secure expansion options for several other spaces in the building.

The main problem at IBM would probably be cost. That space is most of the top 10 floors of the tower (37th-47th floors) meaning they are going to want top price. They are asking $26.00/SF/YR NNN which is probably higher than what they could get as an anchor tenant for a brand new tower (for example, rents for small spaces in the top floors of the ultra-premium 111 S. Wacker are $32.00/SF/YR NNN and at brand-new 155 N Wacker are in the mid-$20's/SF/YR NNN). For a credit-worth, large, tenant like Google, being an anchor tenant makes big-time financial sense.

[b0soleil]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Exactly.

Hell, go to Tokyo, one of the densest cities in the world.... they might have 14? Maybe 16? buildings over 50 stories. That city has one of the liveliest, diverse street cultures in the world. Height means nothing.

Tokyo is low because it's in an Earthquake zone. The cost of density and low building (and it's also the case in Paris and Rome and other cities listed) is that the average person in those cities has much less living space. e.g. My friend's 2 bedroom is ~600 square feet. Taken to an extreme, Sao Paulo's favellas and Mumbai's shantytowns are also very dense and have pretty vibrant street life, but...

I totally agree that it's possible to have density and vibrant streets without taller buildings. And those lessons should be taken into account for urban planning. However, taller buildings helps allow for the larger apartments that Americans want and still maintain density.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by observer

...
And if they do move into a new building, I would prefer the next new skyscraper be built on the site of the 4 STORY BUILDING ON WACKER DRIVE ON RIVERS EDGE!, otherwise known as General Growth building.
...

I hope not. I like that little building. It adds some nice texture to the area, and a style that isn't too common in that part of downtown.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by b0soleil

Tokyo is low because it's in an Earthquake zone. The cost of density and low building (and it's also the case in Paris and Rome and other cities listed) is that the average person in those cities has much less living space. e.g. My friend's 2 bedroom is ~600 square feet. Taken to an extreme, Sao Paulo's favellas and Mumbai's shantytowns are also very dense and have pretty vibrant street life, but...

I totally agree that it's possible to have density and vibrant streets without taller buildings. And those lessons should be taken into account for urban planning. However, taller buildings helps allow for the larger apartments that Americans want and still maintain density.

It's really a misconception that you have to have small units to achieve good density without height. In Chicago, a normal 1 square mile consists of 128 1/2 block rectangles. Each of those has at least 18 standard lots per side, for about 4,600 lots per square mile. For SFHs, with an average household size of 4, that'd be over 18k per sq/mi. If you subtracted 1/3 of the lots for parks and commercial structures, you're at the Chicago average of about 12k per square mile.

Now, a standard lot is about 25x125. Even if you subtract 1/3 of each lot for optional parking, landscaping, walls, etc, that's about 2000 square feet per level. A four-story building could have two 2,000 sq/ft units and four 1,000 square foot units. If we assign 2.5 household size to 2,000 square foot units and 1.5 household size to the 1,000 square foot units, you end up with 12 people on that lot, or three times the density of SFHs, so even after subtractign out the same 1/3 for parks and commerce, you're at 36,000 per sq/mi, and you still have a few parks and some landscaping and a few private parking spots and the relatively wide streets with parkways and street parking that Chicago has.

36,000 people per square mile is the average density for the Ku area of Tokyo. Double that is the average density of central Paris or Manhattan, where the average residential place is probably 5-10 stories. Places are small in Manhattan and Paris and Tokyo more for tradition than due to possibilities. It's entirely possible to have higher density without highrises without sacrificing size.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Edgewater is a good example of this. It has the second highest density of any neighborhood in the city and it is almost all based between The El tracks and Sheridan, not in the highrises. Having block after block of 5 story buildings built to the lot lines drives density through the roof regardless of unit size.

[lawfin]

^^^Absolutely, as is much of the north lake front which has densities in many areas near the lake in excess of 50,000 sq mile. I think EW is approx 36,000 or so as. Hell even rogers park where I live in 2000 was 34,000+ sq mile.

here is a typical residential street:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=wolcot...12,359.33,,0,0

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Alliance

I'd actually rather see them anchor the 200 N Riverside Site, which was a big loss imo, or 400 W Randolph. There is a lot that fits imo. Its about the right height, great location and views, the proposed hotel tower next door would be an asset, its also part of an urban renewal project, it was sexy architecture with a solid developer who had tenants waiting for the site.

A big loss? What did we lose? The only building to exist on that site in the last 150 years is a super-skinny warehouse that sat between the tracks and the river. It was gone by 1970.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ He means that the building that was planned fell through despite having all the necessary tenants in place.

Originally Posted by lawfin

^^^Absolutely, as is much of the north lake front which has densities in many areas near the lake in excess of 50,000 sq mile. I think EW is approx 36,000 or so as. Hell even rogers park where I live in 2000 was 34,000+ sq mile.

here is a typical residential street:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=wolcot...12,359.33,,0,0

Or this street in Edgewater which is one of my favorite on the North Side. Ridiculous density here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=chicag...=12,88.83,,0,0


Also: yay Lawfin and I actually agree for once!

[ardecila]

Whoops I meant 150 N. Riverside (I like Bofill but that design was meh).

200 N. Riverside is a loss, but the plan definitely isn't dead yet.

[SamInTheLoop]

In Roeder's column in the Sun-Times today (headline bit about the groundbreaking in a couple weeks of hideous AMLI River North), he mentions that Reilly is rolling back the PD for 533 N. St. Clair (proposed approximately 500' hotel designed by BKL - at the time just BL). I assume this means that Sutherland Pearsall is officially abandoning this project?? I wonder how common this practice is....it's not like this was a decade or two ago - the proposal was just maybe 4-5 years old at most as far as I can remember.

Also, on AMLI River North - he mentioned it is designed by SCB.....unless in error, did Dick Mann move to SCB? I can't imagine SCB would want to be associated with this very inferior design.....not good for the reputation.

I guess the good news on AMLI is that (yes, yes in addition to good density) is that it is reportedly self-financed, so it's not putting a dent in any bank or life insurance company financing capacity for the other much worthier (all of the rest of them) proposed apartment tower designs out there competing in the market...

[SamInTheLoop]

Crain's reported this morning that a deal has been struck for EnV to be sold at very strong pricing. If it closes at such a price, and if many of the newer Class A rental towers on the market also close at such strong pricing - thinking 3 of the K Station towers, I believe Parc Huron is on the market, etc - this would definitely be a positive that would have a net effect of increasing likelihood that more as opposed to fewer apartment towers break ground over the next 12-18 months. It certainly is a net positive for investor sentiment (granted some will be concerned about overheating which would not be a completely unwarranted worry). Still, continued strong fundamentals in the market and at the very least avoidance of a double-dip recession and at least somewhat better employment growth must occur for the current dynamics in apartment development to remain in place beyond the near-term.

After K2 (assuming this has officially begun construction by now - confirmation, anyone?) and heinous AMLI River North, hopefully 360 W. Hubbard gets underway in the next month or two. Then, next year we have the 'New Waterview' to look forward to hopefully, in addition to Optima Streeterville, 171 N. Wabash/73 E. Lake, and Golub's new Streeterville project. Dark horses out there? The Fitzgerald designed elliptical tower along Halsted in the West Loop? Also, perhaps McCaffery will move aggressively on the next residential component at Roosevelt Collection?....that would actually not surprise me very much if so. The coming new owner(s) of Block 37 could surprise us with a move toward vertical completion?? Others??

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Edgewater is a good example of this. It has the second highest density of any neighborhood in the city and it is almost all based between The El tracks and Sheridan, not in the highrises. Having block after block of 5 story buildings built to the lot lines drives density through the roof regardless of unit size.

Yes, but most of Edgewater's density comes from buildings that cannot be legally built anymore. All of the dense wall to wall courtyard and corner apartment buildings do not have any on-site parking, also the density of units within these buildings will easily fail today's minimum lot area (MLA). We cannot build the ye-old mixed density Chicago neighborhoods anymore. The best we can get as-of-right on residential street is a 6 flat or an 8 flat if the basement is at least 51% below grade, because then it doesn't count against FAR.

Edegwater also has tons of 4+1's which are also no longer allowed under existing zoning either, nor are the high-rises along Sheridan Road which further boost the density of Edgewater; as R-7 and R-8 zones have gone bye bye in the last revision of the zoning code. 4+1's are incredibly dense and have a parking ratio of around 0.5:1. I love counting the mailboxes in 4+1 lobbies because there are just so many of them.

While commercial zoning in Chicago does still provides opportunities for relatively dense mixed-use construction as of right, we do need dense high-rises in areas where allowed to maintain the overall population density in Chicago as old buildings have been torn down, replaced or left abandoned in various neighborhoods and also to offset the smaller family sizes and larger unit demands that we see today. When older buildings were gutted for condo conversions, it was often with a reduction in total units, and additionally, there are plenty of older 2,3 and 4 flats in Lakeview and Lincoln Park that were converted in single family homes, or bulldozed entirely for urban mini-mansions (Burling Street in LP comes to mind).

And then we have the various pocket parks, plazas and playlots added to our cityscape often located where buildings once stood. One reason for Paris's very high density are the very narrow streets which allows for more rentable living spaces to be crammed into a smaller area.

In Chicago's political environment where aldermanic prerogative trumps traditional planning discussions, we need to work within the system to keep Chicago vibrant and economically competitive, rather than hope for a systematic change in zoning policy that will assist in transforming Chicago's neighborhoods into a community that could be found abroad.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Or this street in Edgewater which is one of my favorite on the North Side. Ridiculous density here:

Got to love the courtyard building streets.

Cornelia between Halsted and the El is another good example (not as narrow as Elmdale however)

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Hey I never said you could build a new Edgewater today!

If anything you've just perfectly outlined exactly why we need major modifications to our zoning laws. We need to allow as of right, high density, construction with NO parking where ever the market will support it. Without such changes, eventually our supply of affordable housing will dry up as our supply of old, high density, studio and 1 br apartments is depleted by condo-conversion. Need to keep a supply of these things in the pipeline. The first boom was turn of the century, the second boom was mid-century (4+1) and we are about due for another affordable housing construction boom.

Even 4+1's are starting to get gut-rehabbed into nice condos and luxury apartments.

[b0soleil]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Hey I never said you could build a new Edgewater today!

If anything you've just perfectly outlined exactly why we need major modifications to our zoning laws. We need to allow as of right, high density, construction with NO parking where ever the market will support it. Without such changes, eventually our supply of affordable housing will dry up as our supply of old, high density, studio and 1 br apartments is depleted by condo-conversion. Need to keep a supply of these things in the pipeline. The first boom was turn of the century, the second boom was mid-century (4+1) and we are about due for another affordable housing construction boom.

Even 4+1's are starting to get gut-rehabbed into nice condos and luxury apartments.

As Chicago Shawn pointed out, all things equal (and especially given our current zoning laws), higher allows for more space and density, but totally with you on this one that our zoning laws need to be completely overhauled to allow neighborhoods to become denser. Better urban environment and keeps housing more affordable.

Even more onboard on the no parking requirement where market supports it. It's ridiculous to have parking requirements for buildings right by El stops, etc. If the market bears it, then they'll be built, if not, no. (actually, we should tax builders for the construction of parking spaces to account for the economic externalities that come with additional cars. The answer isn't to just forsake additional construction!)

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Hey I never said you could build a new Edgewater today!

If anything you've just perfectly outlined exactly why we need major modifications to our zoning laws. We need to allow as of right, high density, construction with NO parking where ever the market will support it. Without such changes, eventually our supply of affordable housing will dry up as our supply of old, high density, studio and 1 br apartments is depleted by condo-conversion. Need to keep a supply of these things in the pipeline. The first boom was turn of the century, the second boom was mid-century (4+1) and we are about due for another affordable housing construction boom.

Even 4+1's are starting to get gut-rehabbed into nice condos and luxury apartments.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply the notion of building a new Edgewater today, I was merely responding to the last post in the ongoing discussion.

I am in agreement that zoning needs a new overhaul, but given Chicago's political structure, I don't see that happening at all. Far too many Alderman use the opposition of zoning changes as a means for generating votes by listening to the 'concerns' of a community. The city council as whole, will not approve of any kind of amended zoning code that will limit the power of aldermanic prerogative. Not that long ago, Alderman Burke wanted to scrap the entire Department of Planning and outsource services for 'budget reasons'.

I hope your prediction of a affordable housing boom comes true. Economic conditions certainly warrant it. But of course, it will difficult to achieve without subsidies unless developers are given more flexibility with the existing zoning code, such as allowing for the elimination of parking minimums and MLA standards in specific locations. The fact that we have Minimum Lot Area standards in Downtown (D) districts is ludicrous. There are a couple of vintage high-rises on LaSalle Street that are all studio apartments and no parking, which of course cannot be built today, even in a D District.