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 > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise Construction

    

Loews North Park Drive in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 9:17 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,021
Cool CHICAGO | 435 N Park | 569 ft | 49 FLOORS | T/O

Surprised this one hasn't gotten any attention yet (It's on the site of the canceled Waldorf Astoria, sadly it's not that tower, but it's at least something.)

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 9:21 PM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Victoria Canada
Posts: 7,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Surprised this one hasn't gotten any attention yet
It's been discussed in the Chicago compilations thread but hadn't had a thread created for it until you came along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 9:44 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 10,611
I think it's threadworthy. Love the tower, still hate the base
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 9:56 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
It's definitely thread worthy. First new project in a while that almost breaks the old 700' automatic thread trigger.

Decent tower, crappy base. I like the black mullions and trim a lot though.

Also, can a mod add the Chicago cool face to the thread title? Makes it way easier to lurk the Chicago threads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 1:05 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I think it's threadworthy. Love the tower, still hate the base
Yea I agree for sure, they should just add the base to the tower and make it an 800 footer
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 1:37 AM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
It's definitely thread worthy. First new project in a while that almost breaks the old 700' automatic thread trigger.
It is actually only 625' (not that 625' in this economy is worthy of being preceded by "only")-- not that close to 700'. That is corroborated on the Soar Website, though they still have the old picture -- the tower has been much improved. For historical reference, I'll just post it here:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Decent tower, crappy base. I like the black mullions and trim a lot though.
I think that the glass facing west is really nice (we'll have to see what the rest of the precast ends up looking like). Everything else is a little dungeon-like to the pedestrian.

Last edited by ChiPhi; Mar 16, 2012 at 2:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 2:01 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,021
^Oh well @ the height loss but at least the building is better looking (maybe)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 2:46 AM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
It occurs to me that the statistics on the SOAR site could be outdated with the picture.
Chicago Architecture Blog says 670'. The pot is from after the cosmetic changes, so I'll go with that number. Sorry for the confusion and my incompetence....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 2:48 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Yea I agree for sure, they should just add the base to the tower and make it an 800 footer
There are a couple big pieces of program held in the base, notably a fairly massive grand ballroom which occupies the Northern section [which is height restricted anyways because of the protected view corridor from the Odgen slip to Tribune Tower] that would be hard to economically infuse into the tower itself.

Its not perfect, not its not the worst thing I have ever seen either.


*Since everyone is discussing the height, does anyone know where the 625' (670' w/mechanical) number is being measured from? It could be off a solid 20' if measured from upper Water.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 2:51 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPhi View Post
It occurs to me that the statistics on the SOAR site could be outdated with the picture.
Chicago Architecture Blog says 670'. The pot is from after the cosmetic changes, so I'll go with that number. Sorry for the confusion and my incompetence....
fine by me... if your incompetence means getting a 200+ meter building than I'm all for it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 3:21 AM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
fine by me... if your incompetence means getting a 200+ meter building than I'm all for it
I don't think my incompetence is to blame. But let's try this:

I hear that Wolf Point will definitely not be a super-tall, privately financed by the Kennedy's and Hines and designed by a starchitect (definitely not Norman Foster or Zaha Hadid)...

Now we wait for this to be another slip-up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 5:56 AM
Frankie Frankie is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 99
Community Meeting on 435-463 North Park Drive on Thursday, March 22

A community meeting will be held on Thursday, March 22 to discuss the development proposed for 435-456 North Park Drive. Sponsored by SOAR and Alderman Reilly's office, this meeting is an opportunity for residents to provide input to the developer, ask questions, etc.

The meeting will take place at the University of Chicago's Gleacher Center, 450 N. Cityfront Plaza, in room 621 and will begin promptly at 5:30 PM. RSVPs for this meeting are not necessary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 6:04 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,021
^^Damn I wish I lived in Chi town...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 9:50 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
Since everyone is discussing the height, does anyone know where the 625' (670' w/mechanical) number is being measured from? It could be off a solid 20' if measured from upper Water.
To begin with I don't understand how we are getting way over 600 feet from a 54 story residential/hotel building. Is the secret sauce in the lobby and amenity floors + mech penthouse + measuring from New Street?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 6:46 PM
Swicago Swi Sox's Avatar
Swicago Swi Sox Swicago Swi Sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 151
To clear up the height questions, here is an elevation from The Chicago Architecture Blog:

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...streeterville/

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 6:50 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,021
So it is 670 feet, cool
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 7:42 PM
arkitekte's Avatar
arkitekte arkitekte is offline
Preds/Titans/Grizz
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 2,195
This is a sharp looking tower. So is it 670' or is that an overestimation?
__________________
I built it ground up. You bought it renovated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 7:47 PM
babybackribs2314 babybackribs2314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UWS, Manhattan
Posts: 1,680
Another re-iteration of MiMA in NYC, which turned out heinous... tombstones sprouting everywhere!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 5:29 AM
Swicago Swi Sox's Avatar
Swicago Swi Sox Swicago Swi Sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 151
More info on the height of this building. From tonight's SOAR meeting, a new elevation with a new, slightly lower, max height of 635' to the top of the mechanical screen walls.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 6:06 AM
Swicago Swi Sox's Avatar
Swicago Swi Sox Swicago Swi Sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 151
Other interesting info from the SOAR meeting:

-They expect to begin soil remediation on the site this June, although when the developer gave this answer the architect seemed surprised it would be so early (for whatever that is worth).
-They expect foundation work to begin at the end of 2012. The project is scheduled to open in the summer of 2015.

-The do not have a contract with the expected hotel brand, however they did say that they were very close. The developer said that he had hoped the deal would have been done before this meeting so he could have disclosed the hotel brand. He did give some clues about who the hotel brand might be. He said:
-The hotel portion of the building would be purchased by the hotel brand, not leased or run by the developer.
-The hotel would be 4 diamond (4-star?).
-The hotel brand is a publicly traded company and that hotels are are small percentage of their total business.
-The hotel brand currently only has about (from memory) 7-8 hotels in the US and another 4-5 internationally.

-The city and the project have a desire to renovate Ogden Plaza (the clock park west of the site), but they have hit a snag with the owner of the parking lot below the park.

-Kinda off the topic of this building, but there were several questions from residents about the parcel of land that is just north of this site. Mostly they said that they have no knowledge of the plans for that site, however at one point Alderman Reilly jumped in and said that he has seen no plans come across his desk for the development of that parcel. There were some other clues about what they know however. When asked about what land 435 N Park might use for it's laydown area for the duration of the project, the developer said that they have a relationship with the owner of the parcel to the north and barring them starting their own development soon, they would use that land for laydown. Also, the Architect stressed that they have designed a fully exposed facade on the North side in the event that a building is not built to the North for a while. Finally, the landscape architect said they have provision in their plans for additional trees and landscaping on the North side of 435 in the event that the development of the site to the North does not happen for while (although he did say it would be scrapped if that site moved forward).

This was my first community meeting on a new project and overall I thought it was pretty interesting, although most of the info we have already seen in the released sketches. I was hoping for a more heated debate, but overall everyone was pretty civil.

P.S. One more, sorta off topic tidbit was from an answer by the Alderman about any traffic studies on the recently dangerous intersection of Illinois and Columbus. He said they have a study and mentioned that one of the options is to lower the speed limit on Columbus in that area. Another option was to narrow Columbus to naturally reduce speeds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:11 PM.

     

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