CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Stunnies23

A good article that explains how even Lincoln Park lost population last decade due to arcane zoning laws and aldermanic privilege. The article was then posted to reddit where the masses were educated and left semi pro-urban comments. Any pro urban article I come across in the future I will post there as well to help get our cause out to the general public.
http://danielkayhertz.com/2015/03/16...he-whole-city/
http://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comm...north_side_is/

people are also just having less kids. and when they do have kids, theyre leaving the city. that leaves neighborhoods with more singles and DINKs, which isnt bad but its also not going to reverse population declines.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

This hotel is pretty genius actually. Hipsters/Millenials are going to eat this up. The theme boutique hotel is a huge niche market. Finally something original in Chicago. This is the kind of hotel that even folks that live in the city would want to go stay a night in. Also, the pictures look as though the idea has been executed really well. All that vintage repurposed gym equipment looks pretty good. It will be interesting to see the common space interiors and what they did with those. I bet this place is a big success.

no, i represent that generation. nogo.
the interior reminds me of the old "goofy working out, crazyness ensures" series of disney cartoons.

[spyguy]

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...296632381.html






I really don't know what they are thinking with these changes...and the glass recording studio in the plaza - why?

[joeg1985]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

no, i represent that generation. nogo.
the interior reminds me of the old "goofy working out, crazyness ensures" series of disney cartoons.

Also being a part of that generation myself and having shown these pictures to several friends of the same demographic, I am confident in my predictions.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...296632381.html






I really don't know what they are thinking with these changes...and the glass recording studio in the plaza - why?

Horrible, tacky and tasteless. Funny that they actually put the John Hancock name when a name change has already been mentioned.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

Also being a part of that generation myself and having shown these pictures to several friends of the same demographic, I am confident in my predictions.

well i will not be hanging around your terrible friends.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

This hotel is pretty genius actually. Hipsters/Millenials are going to eat this up. The theme boutique hotel is a huge niche market....

Doubtful that Hipsters will ever want anything to do with this; for starters, the nightly room rates will most likely be cost prohibitive for any of the most self-righteous variety. Plus it's on Michigan Avenue, so that eliminates most hipsters that I know, who hardly ever leave Logan Square, or U. Village, or Bucktown and most certainly wouldn't be caught dead in a derivative and expensive hotel like this. Millenials who have money, or young out-of-towners visiting Chicago would probably rather spend money on a place like the Virgin hotel or the Loews, or the Burnham before they would go here. My buddy and his wife wanted a weekend getaway after her mom passed away, and even though both fall into the 'hipster' category, they wanted to be pampered and stayed for the weekend at the Langham!

The biggest issue I have on the interior design is the gaping disparity between the exterior and the interior - the outside of the hotel is gorgeous and so finely detailed that I would have hope that some of that neo-Gothic framing would have found it's way inside....and instead we get a 'boxcar Billy/Mable the 16th Street Madam, circa 1934' hybrid that is a bit jarring. No likey.

[Via Chicago]

yeah if we're talking young/budget conscious, you're probably looking for something more like the Ace



is not fancy, but its a step above a hostel and gets the job done. more importantly the price is right

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

John buck chosen for tribune site
[URL="http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20150317/CRED03"]http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20150317/CRED03/150319782/tribune-chooses-partner-for-riverside-development[\URL]

Actually it's not John Buck, it's O'Donnell who is a FORMER John Buck executive and the guy behind 150 N Riverside. I'd rather have O'Donnell doing it anyhow. He's shown an ability to really get things done at 150 and also that he has good taste design-wise.

Now if we could just deal with the idiot aldermen:

“I think it's going to be an uphill battle for anyone to do residential,” Burnett said. “Having residential there, with buses coming in and out 24 hours a day, I'd be concerned about complaints from residents. I wouldn't want to hurt that (Greyhound) business that's already there.

“We can look at it. We'd have to talk to the community.”

What the fuck does bus traffic have to do with whether or not residential should be built there? This is exactly why we need to revoke aldermanic privilege. Also, take it to the community? You are talking about an island that has literally ZERO residential population. There is no community to take it to.

Of course I'm sure it will end well, Burnett just wants to make sure he get's his legal bribe in the form of campaign contributions from O'Donnell and Tribune.

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...296632381.html






I really don't know what they are thinking with these changes...and the glass recording studio in the plaza - why?

Ummmm, nope. How about we get this building landmarked exterior-only? I think the residents will surely appreciate the tax break, maybe they can ram it down the throats of the other owners...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Good fucking god!!!

Bruce Graham is spinning in his grave.

What a fucking joke. This actually makes me angry.

It's bad enough that stupid "Tilt" gimmick, Best Buy, and Shit Cake Factory were all allowed to ruin the building, oh and that shitty plaza overhaul they did back in the 90s... but this just crosses the line. The extent to which Modern architecture is shit on in this city is baffling.

[JaseFace]

Personally I find the inside of the hotel quite appealing. Not that it matters, but I do fall into the millennial category.

But that Hancock plaza "redevelopment".... absolutely unacceptable.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Bruce Graham is spinning in his grave.

What a fucking joke. This actually makes me angry.

Well, the good news is that both Rahm and Reilly are lining up to block it. It may be ultimately down to the Aldermanic runoff winner, though.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-...-block-changes

This feeling of agreeing with Reilly. I'm so...

[k1052]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

What the fuck does bus traffic have to do with whether or not residential should be built there? This is exactly why we need to revoke aldermanic privilege. Also, take it to the community? You are talking about an island that has literally ZERO residential population. There is no community to take it to.

Of course I'm sure it will end well, Burnett just wants to make sure he get's his legal bribe in the form of campaign contributions from O'Donnell and Tribune.

The bus terminal is actually already closer to the existing residential condos in the Ward complex than this could ever be.

[Via Chicago]

how do developers even justify that to themselves? how would that change possibly make the building more attractive...its just a pointless giant sheet of glass that dosent even attempt to match the existing architecture

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

how do developers even justify that to themselves? how would that change possibly make the building more attractive...its just a pointless giant sheet of glass that dosent even attempt to match the existing architecture

You have to remember that most of the people running these institutional shops are completely aesthetically blind MBA graduates who only understand formulas. To them $X invested = $Y appreciation in value and rents. They are completely ignorant of what $X looks like in real life or what else they could get for that money if they actually had taste, to them it's just a line item in a proforma spreadsheet that they are using to calculate how to bump their investment up from a 6% cap rate to an 8% cap rate so they can flip it to the next sucker for millions of dollars in profit. Just look at what they are doing to the beautiful lobby of Jahn's 1 S. Wacker. That's why smaller developers like O'Donnell are able to wail on enormous competitors like Hines. 444 W Lake and 150 N Riverside are literally exactly the same formula, but O'Donnell is doing everything slightly more tastefully at 150 and thereby mopping up most of the tenants shopping for that kind of space right now. I think much of O'Donnell's advantage is aesthetic or quality related. He is simply offering a more interesting, more visible, more "landmark" product and, let's face it, that's a huge plus for Class A+ tenants looking to be in a signature new tower.

[ardecila]

^ but that's the weird thing. I don't think there is anybody out there right now with a cringe-inducing office proposal. All of the legitimate competitors have top-notch, talented architects on their team - Goettsch, Krueck+Sexton, Pickard Chilton, John Ronan, Cesar Pelli. I wouldn't necessarily give Hines the edge over O'Donnell on design.

Residential is where we see the local hacks come out to play, partly because there is and will always be a segment of the market demanding "traditional" design and there are precious few firms on a national level who do that (AM Stern being one).

[mattshoe]

Originally Posted by lu9

Starting to come together. I'll reserve judgement until the support piers are removed. A nice paint job will help as well. My main concern is the random support beams between the three arches. Those aren't very elegant.

The supports on the bottom will be removed when all of the wiring is complete. The bridge will also raise a few feet, or has it already?

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by mattshoe

The supports on the bottom will be removed when all of the wiring is complete. The bridge will also raise a few feet, or has it already?

It's already raised about foot and half.
It is hard to see, but if you look close at the support piers, you'll see that it is standing on jacks.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by mattshoe

The supports on the bottom will be removed when all of the wiring is complete. The bridge will also raise a few feet, or has it already?

No he's talking about the lateral bracing at the top of the arch. Very inelegant.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I find this very surprising. It doesn't look super appealing for a luxury-oriented traveler. If I saw "Athletic Association" on a priceline/orbitz/expedia search listings I'd think it was an error.

It all depends on how your market it. The bathrooms look pretty decent actually - the rest of it is eh. Could be better for sure.