CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7 - Page 800

SolarWind · #**15981** Posted **Nov 11, 2019, 6:56 AM**

November 8, 2019

SolarWind · #**15982** Posted **Nov 11, 2019, 6:56 AM**

November 8, 2019

harryc · #**15983** Posted **Nov 11, 2019, 8:43 PM**

Nov 4

Nov 9

SolarWind · #**15984** Posted **Nov 12, 2019, 1:43 AM**

November 8, 2019

harryc · #**15985** Posted **Nov 12, 2019, 3:08 AM**

Nov 6

harryc · #**15986** Posted **Nov 12, 2019, 3:31 AM**

Oct 6

Oct 8

harryc · #**15987** Posted **Nov 13, 2019, 12:48 AM**

Nov 6

harryc · #**15988** Posted **Nov 13, 2019, 1:33 AM**

Nov 6

SolarWind · #**15989** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 3:38 AM**

November 13, 2019

Skyguy_7 · #**15990** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 2:35 PM**

^ That is one nicely-graded site!

I see Case is wasting no time whatsoever. Hope this one pleasantly surprises us. I don't have high hopes considering they put relatively zero effort into renderings.

Northwest · #**15991** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

November 13, 2019

Wow, those unobstructed views of Millennium Park, right from the corner. They are only doing 25 floors here? This land seems too valuable.

chicubs111 · #**15992** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northwest

Wow, those unobstructed views of Millennium Park, right from the corner. They are only doing 25 floors here? This land seems too valuable.

absolutely...don't get the lack of height for this project...even with a zoning change request im sure there wouldn't of been any push back at this location.

Steely Dan · #**15993** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 3:33 PM**

^ yeah, it's one thing to play things a little safe on a less than stellar site, but this seems like it has "wasted opportunity" written all over it based on the location and potential views higher floors would've had over the park.

RedCorsair87 · #**15994** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 4:51 PM**

This building is short and ugly as sin. It makes 300N Michigan Ave look like building of the year. This would have been a great spot for another 800 footer, but maybe the lot isn't big enough #doubtIt

Steely Dan · #**15995** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 7:33 PM**

this forum clearly can't discuss affordable housing issues in a mature and respectful fashion, so those posts have been deleted.

chicubs111 · #**15996** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 9:59 PM**

Loop property sale raises prospect of big tower
The owner of the office building at 77 W. Wacker acquired the Garvey Court property next door. The property, which was at the center of a bankruptcy battle a few years ago, offers a compelling development opportunity.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...pect-big-tower

Chisouthside · #**15997** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 10:10 PM**

That building remaining mostly empty is such an eyesore.

Steely Dan · #**15998** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 10:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Loop property sale raises prospect of big tower
The owner of the office building at 77 W. Wacker acquired the Garvey Court property next door. The property, which was at the center of a bankruptcy battle a few years ago, offers a compelling development opportunity.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...pect-big-tower

very interesting.

though the article says that the other 2 buildings in the PD have veto power over any potential redevelopment of the site, and with one of those buildings being the god-awful 200 N dearborn condo tower, my guess is that the west-facing units there will fight tooth and nail to stop any tall development on the site from ever being built.

SamInTheLoop · #**15999** Posted **Nov 15, 2019, 12:40 AM**

^ Interesting but my guess is - and purely a guess - that they will redevelop as a small building like something you see in the rendering. Article states that OHSTRS was effectively vetoing the previous 80+ story 'plan' for the site (under previous ownership). While I don't know exactly why they were against it (it was a stretch imo to ever really call it a real project, as there was no real comparable track record by developers in evidence), it was not because it would introduce office space competition - it was not office, it was resi/hotel and thus likely complementary if well-executed and hitting the right market, etc. So, was it the threat of view blockage? That's the other main possibility (absent just a lack of confidence in the developer to pull the project off). If that's the case, then unless they did a 180 there, they won't build something tall obviously. I could be completely wrong, but that's my guess. Watch them redevelop as a food hall.

SamInTheLoop · #**16000** Posted **Nov 15, 2019, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111

absolutely...don't get the lack of height for this project...even with a zoning change request im sure there wouldn't of been any push back at this location.

It is a mystery. Still don't get it. I think they might have gotten some push back potentially above a certain height, but from my point of view the developer just simply left 150-250 units on the table (maybe 20-25 stories). Just to not go through what would probably be a fairly run-of-the-mill entitlement process (don't see a groundswell of controoversy likely for a project of this nature in this location).

Just a weird calculus.