CHICAGO | Optima Center Chicago | 442 ft | 42 FLOORS | COM - Page 3

Steely Dan · #41 Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 6:49 PM**

^ yes, SOAR has been the leading community group that has gotten neighborhood folks to remove their heads from their rear-ends and realize that instead of having knee-jerk conniption fits about height figures and unit counts, it's far more productive to focus attention on what's going on at street level and persuade developers into making better decisions about how their developments interact with the surrounding streets.

headcase · #42 Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ yes, SOAR has been the leading community group that has gotten neighborhood folks to remove their heads from their rear-ends and realize that instead of having knee-jerk conniption fits about height figures and unit counts, it's far more productive to focus attention on what's going on at street level and persuade developers into making better decisions about how their developments interact with the surrounding streets.

I don't disagree with that, they are definitely the lesser of a bunch of possible evils. But have they ever positively impacted the overall design of a building? They have stopped, or helped stop, a couple of teardowns, but I don't think that is the same thing.

SSDD

siunate2324 · #43 Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 1:01 AM**

Weren't alot of guys from the Chicago forum meeting for awhile discussing creating a group for forward-thinking development? Did that ever come to fruition or kinda just dissolve...because I think it was a pretty good idea

headcase · #44 Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 2:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by siunate2324

Weren't alot of guys from the Chicago forum meeting for awhile discussing creating a group for forward-thinking development? Did that ever come to fruition or kinda just dissolve...because I think it was a pretty good idea

Yes and Yes

SSDD

Nowhereman1280 · #45 Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by headcase

I don't disagree with that, they are definitely the lesser of a bunch of possible evils. But have they ever positively impacted the overall design of a building? They have stopped, or helped stop, a couple of teardowns, but I don't think that is the same thing.

SSDD

One example off the top of my head was the design for the Apartment tower that was to accommodate the W=A tower. They demanded, and received, a dramatic redesign of the base that hid the parking and reduced the bulkiness though I'm not certain images of the new design ever ended up being posted here.

headcase · #46 Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

One example off the top of my head was the design for the Apartment tower that was to accommodate the W=A tower. They demanded, and received, a dramatic redesign of the base that hid the parking and reduced the bulkiness though I'm not certain images of the new design ever ended up being posted here.

That that you mention it, I do remember that situation, and it makes be thankful that I rarely speak in absolutes!

Thanks.
SSDD

Nowhereman1280 · #47 Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 6:05 PM**

^^^ Yes, and I'm pretty sure they've bitched at NW several times for having too much parking, but I'm not sure how much success they've had in curtailing it. They also were against the base on 500 N LSD and helped get that modified, but it's not much better than it was. They were also fanatically in favor of the Spire when it was proposed and hailed its below ground parking, clean up of LSD, and creation of DuSable Park. I was at a meeting where a SOAR member actually shot down some guy who was complaining that people would be walking down the side street to get to the Spire by saying he lived down the street from the guy complaining and was upset that the complainer always walked down HIS street to get to his townhome.

ardecila · #48 Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 6:25 PM**

I'm actually pretty confident that former "Peshtigo" plans would have been better for the city than the current 500 N. LSD. The SOAR comparison PDF touts a reduction in the accessory parking rate from 1.18 down to 0.55, but since the new proposal increased the unit count from 358 to 500, the total number of parking spaces is virtually the same. I guess the added density is good, but if they're all driving, who cares? The old proposal would also have been much taller, with a more dynamic form.

Plus, Perkins + Will has a successful track record IMO of handling parking podiums, turning them into unique visual experiences or abstract sculpture but always maintaining relationships between the inside and outside. They never really got around to designing the podium before the proposal died, so I can only peak in hypotheticals. However, the worst thing you can do is put the parking podium behind blank walls - but that's exactly what SCB is now doing at 500 N LSD, and covering the facade in greenery. Architects often make jokes about how vegetation is used to cover up poor design, and this seems like the ideal example.

the urban politician · #49 Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

The SOAR comparison PDF touts a reduction in the accessory parking rate from 1.18 down to 0.55, but since the new proposal increased the unit count from 358 to 500, the total number of parking spaces is virtually the same. I guess the added density is good, but if they're all driving, who cares? The old proposal would also have been much taller, with a more dynamic form.

^ Why do we always have to go over this again. Just because people wish to store their car in the building doesn't mean they are all driving all the time. I lived with a car in NY, Chicago, and Washington DC and I did a lot of my day to day activities by foot.

Besides, number of units is not the same as number of residents, and it is likely there will be a large number of carless people living in this building.

We should celebrate the density. More density brings more services, causing people to drive even less as more developments like this are built.

ardecila · #50 Posted **Dec 8, 2011, 8:54 PM**

^^ Yes, because Streeterville is chock-a-block with all sorts of services and useful daily retail.

The number of parking spaces is a proxy for garage size, so while SOAR loves to tout this reduction in accessory parking, the fact is that there will be no fewer parking spaces than before. That's not an improvement, even if SOAR says it is.

Plus, Related greatly enlarged the number of units over the original proposal while reducing their size so much that the tower is shorter and skinnier. The unit count was increased by nearly 50% while the height was decreased by nearly 30%. That tells me the finished rental units will be a lot smaller, occupied by owners who have less desire or need for a car than the residents of sprawling 3-bedroom condos.

The city just got a great new park across the street, and then they go ahead and approve a huge-ass parking podium to directly face the park. Wanna create neighborhoods that stay desirable after they stop being trendy? This is not how you do it.

the urban politician · #51 Posted **Dec 8, 2011, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

^^ Yes, because Streeterville is chock-a-block with all sorts of services and useful daily retail.

^ This is slowly changing

VivaLFuego · #52 Posted **Dec 8, 2011, 9:26 PM**

Foundation crane is on site, this one is ready to get going imminently.

Nowhereman1280 · #53 Posted **Dec 8, 2011, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm actually pretty confident that former "Peshtigo" plans would have been better for the city than the current 500 N. LSD. The SOAR comparison PDF touts a reduction in the accessory parking rate from 1.18 down to 0.55, but since the new proposal increased the unit count from 358 to 500, the total number of parking spaces is virtually the same. I guess the added density is good, but if they're all driving, who cares? The old proposal would also have been much taller, with a more dynamic form.

I'm not talking about Peshtigo vs 500 N. Lake Shore Drive. That change had absolutely nothing to do with SOAR. I'm talking about 500 N. LSD revision #0 and 500 N. LSD revision #1. SOAR put pressure on them to do something about the podium and, while the current proposal's podium still sucks, it is significantly better than the original tumor that was proposed.

Alliance · #54 Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 12:48 AM**

I'm not really excited about this proposal. We're really flirting with banality here. Going based on what we see (and not Hovey's reputation) I'm damn skeptical. But its nice that its going to go up so quickly.

harryc · #55 Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 9:09 PM**

Move it to U/C - caisson drills on site and drilling, belled bits in use at lunch time today.

lawfin · #56 Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 9:35 PM**

I am sorry do we have a height on this guy....this isn't going to be on of Chicago 40+ story 310 ft buidlings is it?

Nowhereman1280 · #57 Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 9:49 PM**

Based on Hovey's previous projects I would estimate it will be about 10' total floor heights. He'll probably have 9-9.5 foot ceilings, he's used 9' in most of his projects such as Optima Old Orchard.

I would guess that this will be between 380' and 400' depending on whether the 42 stories starts from grade or upper Illinois. Looks in the rendering like it will be a touch shorter than Tribune Tower (about up to the tops of the buttresses) which would further support this height range.

chicagoisepic · #58 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 2:57 AM**

I doubt it will go over 425 feet.

Swicago Swi Sox · #59 Posted **Dec 17, 2011, 1:41 AM**

Caisson installation ongoing at the site...wish there was more than the one rendering on this one.

ardecila · #60 Posted **Dec 17, 2011, 7:25 AM**

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the pics!