SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | Essex on the Park | 607 FT | 56 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225358)

rlw777 Jan 5, 2017 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680 (Post 7668479)
I prefer the current version as well - the stilts were a bit gimmicky.

I'll take a bit gimmicky over generic.

Bombardier Jan 5, 2017 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE (Post 7668198)
Doe's anyone have a link to the schedule of this project. Just wondering if the hotel rehab is going to shut down the whole hotel or if they are going to do a floor by floor type of thing? Also will that portion coincide with the tower portion or after the tower is finished?

The whole hotel will shut down for 8 months with the reopening of the hotel occurring about the same time as the tower opening.

Rocket49 Jan 6, 2017 1:52 AM

I noticed that the Essex Inn is a landmark property.

I was wondering how the landmark designation works.

To me as a layman, the Essex Inn is a nice looking hotel from the 1960's, but doesn't look like something I would think would typically be landmarked.

I was wondering, is the main reason the Essex Inn is landmarked is because it's on Michigan Avenue across from Grant Park?

Or is the hotel landmarked because the city has an interest in seeing that architecture from the 1960's is preserved?

BVictor1 Jan 6, 2017 2:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket49 (Post 7669071)
I noticed that the Essex Inn is a landmark property.

I was wondering how the landmark designation works.

To me as a layman, the Essex Inn is a nice looking hotel from the 1960's, but doesn't look like something I would think would typically be landmarked.

I was wondering, is the main reason the Essex Inn is landmarked is because it's on Michigan Avenue across from Grant Park?

Or is the hotel landmarked because the city has an interest in seeing that architecture from the 1960's is preserved?

The developers asked for it to be landmarked as a part of the project and I'm sure they'll apply for tax credits.

Rocket49 Jan 6, 2017 3:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7669123)
The developers asked for it to be landmarked as a part of the project and I'm sure they'll apply for tax credits.

Thanks for the info.

But I assume there are at least some standards for what can be approved as a landmark?

For instance , I hope it would not be possible for a McDonalds built in 2005 to be classified as a landmark

Ned.B Jan 6, 2017 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket49 (Post 7669168)
Thanks for the info.

But I assume there are at least some standards for what can be approved as a landmark?

For instance , I hope it would not be possible for a McDonalds built in 2005 to be classified as a landmark

Generally a building must be at least 50 years old in order to be considered for landmark status, though exceptions have been made for exceptional examples, such as with the Daley Center and Inland Steel Building. A building must also have high integrity, that is largely unaltered or easily restorable to it's original construction or period of significance. Those are the base lines to be eligible, but to be designated, building must also be shown to meet 2 of seven criteria: importance to city heritage, association with a significant event, association with an important person, important architecture movement, important architect, distinctive theme as a district, or unique visual features.

In the case of Essex, it qualified for designation as 1. an important work by architect A. Epstein and Sons, 2. as a postwar building within the existing Michigan Boulevard Landmark District (per a study that was conducted this summer to expand the period of significance for the district), and 3. as a highly intact example of the International Style (and fairly early example at that)

Mr Downtown Jan 6, 2017 3:55 PM

Landmarks is interested in broadening its protection of midcentury modernism in Chicago, and extracted a promise to restore the existing hotel as they began discussions of approving the new building. On paper, it may look to BVictor1 like the owner requested the designation, but that's not my understanding of the actual dynamics of the negotiation.

Rocket49 Jan 6, 2017 7:59 PM

Thanks for the info on landmarking, guys. Very interesting.

r18tdi Jan 6, 2017 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7669123)
The developers asked for it to be landmarked as a part of the project and I'm sure they'll apply for tax credits.

https://twitter.com/ChicagoDPD/statu...82113774198786

You don't say...

ardecila Jan 8, 2017 4:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7669552)
Landmarks is interested in broadening its protection of midcentury modernism in Chicago, and extracted a promise to restore the existing hotel as they began discussions of approving the new building. On paper, it may look to BVictor1 like the owner requested the designation, but that's not my understanding of the actual dynamics of the negotiation.

Unfortunately it seems like much of the best midcentury modernism (outside of downtown) is located in bungalow belt areas that are unlikely to really appreciate modernism.

Even North Federal Savings and Loan at North/LaSalle ended up being rejected as a landmark, in part due to neighborhood opposition. This in a neighborhood full of prosperous, educated folks that shop at Crate and Barrel and Design Within Reach...

Mr Downtown Jan 8, 2017 6:38 PM

^Why would there be neighborhood opposition to that? Was it maybe Astroturf testimony arranged by the owner? I can't find any reference to opposition, only weird speculation by Lynn Becker that "resistance" (from whom? the owner? Landmarks staff? the mayor's office?) was the reason North Federal hadn't previously been landmarked.

BVictor1 Jan 13, 2017 8:21 AM

Essex Landmarking and Historical info:

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...Prelim_Sum.pdf

BVictor1 Jan 18, 2017 7:55 AM

Interior demolition of the parking/pool structure has begun.

Rocket49 Jan 18, 2017 8:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7676661)
Essex Landmarking and Historical info:

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...Prelim_Sum.pdf

Very interesting. Love the old advertising literature on the Essex, and the historical background information.

KWILLSKYLINE Jan 19, 2017 10:47 AM

Rahm E. Is breaking ground ceremony this morning on the Essex site. Nbc 5##

Not sure what ground they will break? The roof of the parking garage? Haha

Kippis Jan 19, 2017 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE (Post 7682933)
Rahm E. Is breaking ground ceremony this morning on the Essex site. Nbc 5##

Not sure what ground they will break? The roof of the parking garage? Haha

They fill a sandbox with some dirt and hand the important folks a golden shovel. Sounds crazy, but it happens.

Excited to see this tower get off the ground!

KWILLSKYLINE Jan 19, 2017 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7668134)
Is that East-West University building going to continue unchanged as far as we know right now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kippis (Post 7682984)
They fill a sandbox with some dirt and hand the important folks a golden shovel. Sounds crazy, but it happens.

Excited to see this tower get off the ground!

haha yeah I know thats the routine like they currently did for vista. I just think it would awesome and hillarious to have rahm in a suit/hardhat using a jackhammer on a garage roof. now that would be a picture.

aaron38 Jan 19, 2017 2:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7676661)
Essex Landmarking and Historical info:

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...Prelim_Sum.pdf

They should bring back the red & blue window shades for a nice splash of color.

maru2501 Jan 19, 2017 3:47 PM

mayor's office calling it 57 stories, so I guess that's right

Bombardier Jan 21, 2017 12:26 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...119-story.html

Groundbreaking ceremony article with photo

BVictor1 Jan 21, 2017 6:17 AM

Can we change the title of the thread to 'Essex on the Park'?

That's the name mentioned in the Trib article.

ardecila Jan 23, 2017 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7671417)
^Why would there be neighborhood opposition to that? Was it maybe Astroturf testimony arranged by the owner? I can't find any reference to opposition, only weird speculation by Lynn Becker that "resistance" (from whom? the owner? Landmarks staff? the mayor's office?) was the reason North Federal hadn't previously been landmarked.

So then why wasn't it landmarked? Purely just opposition from the owner?

SolarWind Feb 1, 2017 2:17 AM

January 24, 2017




simon07 Feb 1, 2017 3:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind (Post 7696639)
January 24, 2017




What is going to happen to the garage behind essex that fronts Wabash? I noticed it is still operating. Is it being demolished also, will it be rebuilt as parking fog the new tower?

KWILLSKYLINE Feb 1, 2017 5:07 AM

I hope they save, restore and somehow incorporate that old vertical Essex sign from the old garage into the new building. If not I hope someone picks them up and puts them into storage or somewhere they wont go to waste.

Bombardier Feb 9, 2017 9:34 PM

Lots of demo activity today... heard they were delayed by some asbestos and just started back today.

Bombardier Feb 10, 2017 12:13 PM

The South Loop Symposium was pretty good last night. During Q&A someone asked how the developer felt about what Landmarks did to change the design. John Rutledge and Jim Plunkard were very diplomatic in their responses and said they were able to achieve additional height as part of the trade off for taking out the cross braces and enclosing the winter garden. I still think the original design was better!

BVictor1 Feb 10, 2017 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombardier (Post 7707647)
The South Loop Symposium was pretty good last night. During Q&A someone asked how the developer felt about what Landmarks did to change the design. John Rutledge and Jim Plunkard were very diplomatic in their responses and said they were able to achieve additional height as part of the trade off for taking out the cross braces and enclosing the winter garden. I still think the original design was better!

That was me who asked that question.

BVictor1 Feb 11, 2017 4:44 AM

So, there were a few interesting things about th Essex mentioned at the CAF lecture.

Again, it was landmarks and the city who caused the design change.

I find it almost hilarious even though it's sad and pathetic that officials in the city renowned for its architecture help with the dumbing down of designs because of fear that the new towers would overshadow and or be too out of scale.

With the removal of the X-bracing, the amount of concrete needed would go up by about 25% according to the architect. I believe he said it was roughly a $10,000,000 cost.

The verticals we see on the north and south facades are actually structural buttresses that thin out (from 5' at the base and then 3', 2', 1' and they disappear at the top) as the tower rises and they will be clad with metal.

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

I'm sure you remember hearing that when the Wabash/Madison stop was disassembled, some of those facade pieces were saved. Well guess who has them... the developer, and it seems like they want to install/encase these pieces within the winter garden area.
https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

And demo pics from 02/10/17
https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

Oh...! BTW, we may have to bump this back to 620'. The architect said this number several times and when I mentioned I'd seen 607', he said with all the screening it's 620'. Hopefully I'll see more drawings in the future.

the urban politician Feb 11, 2017 3:01 PM

Wow, great update BV. So the buttresses actually perform a vital function. Does that mean it's now more "honest"?

Really neat that they are reusing classic L station elements in the Winter Garden. Not sure if I will ever see it in person, but it's still good to know

danielschell Feb 17, 2017 6:17 PM

https://buildingupchicagodotcom.file...pg?w=768&h=576

https://buildingupchicagodotcom.file....jpg?w=1250&h=

KWILLSKYLINE Feb 18, 2017 3:49 PM

I never realized how tacky and outdated that pool deck was. Sorry, not to offend anyone if it has architectural significance.

Mister Uptempo Feb 18, 2017 5:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielschell (Post 7715680)

While I'm thrilled at the prospect of a new building rising in this spot, I must also admit to being a little sad, as this current structure is now just a "schell" of its former self.

I'll see myself out, now. :runaway:

danielschell Feb 18, 2017 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo (Post 7716612)
While I'm thrilled at the prospect of a new building rising in this spot, I must also admit to being a little sad, as this current structure is now just a "schell" of its former self.

I'll see myself out, now. :runaway:

There *has* to be some kind of suspension for this

harryc Feb 18, 2017 10:24 PM

Feb 10





Bombardier Feb 21, 2017 1:48 PM

The overhead canopy marketing signs are now installed. They look really good. The garage is 3/4 of the way down. Seem to be moving along nicely on the one.

SolarWind Feb 22, 2017 2:02 AM

February 21, 2017






r18tdi Feb 24, 2017 6:28 PM

Facade tweaks?

Pretty sure, the horizontal banding is new...

https://archpaper.com/wp-content/upl...Grant-Park.jpg
https://42mzqz26jebqf6rd034t5pef-wpe...Grant-Park.jpg
Images by HPA/The Architects Newspaper

EDIT: HOW DO I RESIZE??

Ned.B Feb 24, 2017 10:40 PM

The vertical shear elements on the south and north sides have been adjusted a bit too. They now step in as the building rises until they pretty much disappear at the top. I believe this change was hinted a week or two ago.

BVictor1 Mar 3, 2017 7:25 PM

03/02/17

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

SolarWind Mar 9, 2017 4:05 AM

March 8, 2017








KWILLSKYLINE Mar 9, 2017 6:50 AM

So close yet so far. Anybody got an educated guess of when the drills start dropping?

Bombardier Mar 9, 2017 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE (Post 7734881)
So close yet so far. Anybody got an educated guess of when the drills start dropping?

Mobilization should be the week of 3/27. They still have to remove the existing foundations and stabilize the site with brick bat for the next couple weeks before the rigs arrive.

UrbanLibertine Mar 9, 2017 1:28 PM

^^^I like how they wrote "Stays" on the existing building next door

Jim in Chicago Mar 9, 2017 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine (Post 7734964)
^^^I like how they wrote "Stays" on the existing building next door

You never know - sort of like writing "the OTHER knee" on one leg before surgery.

BVictor1 Mar 21, 2017 2:11 AM

03/20/17

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

marothisu Apr 4, 2017 12:29 PM

New construction permit issued for this yesterday

BVictor1 Apr 4, 2017 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 7761851)
New construction permit issued for this yesterday

808 S MICHIGAN AVE
Description: ***DIRECT DEVELOPER SERVICES***FOUNDATION AND CONCRETE STRUCTURE UP TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE 6TH FLOOR FOR A PROPOSED 56 STORY 479 DWELLING UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING; 84 PARKING SPACES; GROUND FLOOR RETAIL; ALL AS PER PLANS

Application Review Summary

Name Completed Date Status

OPEN SPACE REVIEW 2017-03-31 WAIVED
FINAL DATA REVIEW 2017-03-31 APPROVED
PLANNING REVIEW 2017-03-29 APPROVED
GEOTECH REVIEW 2017-03-28 APPROVED
LANDSCAPE REVIEW (ZONING) 2017-03-09 APPROVED
LANDMARK REVIEW 2017-02-27 APPROVED
ARCHITECTURAL & FIRE REVIEW 2017-02-24 APPROVED
DRIVEWAY REVIEW 2017-02-24 CONDITIONAL PROJECT
CIVIL/STORMWATER REVIEW 2017-02-13 APPROVED
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2017-02-09 APPROVED
REVENUE REVIEW 2017-01-25 APPROVED
PRELIMINARY INTAKE REVIEW 2017-01-19 APPROVED
ZONING REVIEW WAIVED

simon07 Apr 4, 2017 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7761914)
808 S MICHIGAN AVE
Description: ***DIRECT DEVELOPER SERVICES***FOUNDATION AND CONCRETE STRUCTURE UP TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE 6TH FLOOR FOR A PROPOSED 56 STORY 479 DWELLING UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING; 84 PARKING SPACES; GROUND FLOOR RETAIL; ALL AS PER PLANS

Application Review Summary

Name Completed Date Status

OPEN SPACE REVIEW 2017-03-31 WAIVED
FINAL DATA REVIEW 2017-03-31 APPROVED
PLANNING REVIEW 2017-03-29 APPROVED
GEOTECH REVIEW 2017-03-28 APPROVED
LANDSCAPE REVIEW (ZONING) 2017-03-09 APPROVED
LANDMARK REVIEW 2017-02-27 APPROVED
ARCHITECTURAL & FIRE REVIEW 2017-02-24 APPROVED
DRIVEWAY REVIEW 2017-02-24 CONDITIONAL PROJECT
CIVIL/STORMWATER REVIEW 2017-02-13 APPROVED
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2017-02-09 APPROVED
REVENUE REVIEW 2017-01-25 APPROVED
PRELIMINARY INTAKE REVIEW 2017-01-19 APPROVED
ZONING REVIEW WAIVED


So I'll ask again. Is the old parking garage facing Wabash somehow part of this development? It it going to be rehabbed, left as-is, demolished? This shows 84 parking spaces which seems like a small amount for a 479 unit building. I don't care if there are zeros spaces btw, just want to know what the plan is for that ugly garage on Wabash.

Bombardier Apr 5, 2017 12:15 AM

^The garage on the corner of Wabash and 8th is not part of the Essex project. It is on a different parcel and owned by a different owner. They just did some work inside the garage, not sure what they did.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.