SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | NEMA Chicago | 896 FT | 81 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218570)

BVictor1 Mar 11, 2016 1:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_b (Post 7366584)
The park is not being built for public benefit, it is being built to maximize the sales price of the townhouses that surround it. Exactly one block south, you've got Webster Park and those townhouses that line it are pure money. 33% higher per sq foot sales price than those across the street from the park.

Webster Park may not have been built for the public benefit, I can't remember, but it certainly is a public park.

http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/p...-webster-park/

If phase 3 is the same, I still see it as redundant, especially if somewhere in the distant future the tracks to the east are decked over for additional green space.

brian_b Mar 11, 2016 2:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7366949)
Webster Park may not have been built for the public benefit, I can't remember, but it certainly is a public park.

http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/p...-webster-park/

If phase 3 is the same, I still see it as redundant, especially if somewhere in the distant future the tracks to the east are decked over for additional green space.

Oh, for sure the park will be public. But the developers are building it to increase the prices for the homes they will be selling. That's all I was trying to write.

SamInTheLoop Mar 11, 2016 5:16 PM

Ah, to be reminded of crescent heights' dumb plan to switch the 1300 Indiana block parcel to townhomes......I would much rather shave some density off their grant park-fronting towers to at least keep the 1300 block in the 25-30 story range.....to have a ~600-900 wall of towers directly backed in part by townhomes will definitely yield a flimsy/superficial/goofy feel in the area.....not well thought out from an urban design perspective....

Mr Downtown Mar 11, 2016 8:17 PM

Exactly. Having despoiled Grant Park by putting all their units in towers with jetliner views, they have to piss away the final parcel on a useless little dog-poop park and some townhouses. It's why we say that Chicago has a Department of Planning and Development, where the Planning is silent.

Shwayze1994 Mar 12, 2016 12:23 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but how dumb is it to build a park right next to an amazing park. It makes no sense. Or the idea of townhouses, eventually this will be a dense area, 50 years down the road as the skyline moves in a southward direction. Also why not just sit on that last parcel of land and just wait it out till the market is ripe and build an even taller tower to still get the views and the units needed. Maybe there's more to it that I don't understand, but I see it that way.

Mr Downtown Mar 12, 2016 2:48 AM

Developers aren't big on delayed gratification.

20 years from now there might not be so many Chinese investors with excess money they need to park in the US.

the urban politician Mar 12, 2016 4:13 AM

Those townhouses are probably an epic investment right now.

The Lurker Mar 12, 2016 5:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7367611)
Ah, to be reminded of crescent heights' dumb plan to switch the 1300 Indiana block parcel to townhomes......I would much rather shave some density off their grant park-fronting towers to at least keep the 1300 block in the 25-30 story range.....to have a ~600-900 wall of towers directly backed in part by townhomes will definitely yield a flimsy/superficial/goofy feel in the area.....not well thought out from an urban design perspective....

I was thinking the same thing

Le Baron Mar 12, 2016 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7367611)
Ah, to be reminded of crescent heights' dumb plan to switch the 1300 Indiana block parcel to townhomes......I would much rather shave some density off their grant park-fronting towers to at least keep the 1300 block in the 25-30 story range.....to have a ~600-900 wall of towers directly backed in part by townhomes will definitely yield a flimsy/superficial/goofy feel in the area.....not well thought out from an urban design perspective....

I have a different perspective. Crescent Heights was smart, from an investors' perspective, to allocate more units to the parcels along Roosevelt which have substantially better views than the lot on the 1300 block of Indiana.

The 1300 lot is blocked to the north by The Grant (~54 floors) and OMP (~62 floors); blocked to the east by Museum Park Tower 4 (~35-40 floors); blocked to the west by Sky55 (~40 floors) and the red brick mid-rise (~15 floors); blocked to the southeast by MP Tower 1 (~20 floors) and Museum Pointe (~26 floors) and to a lesser extent MP T2 (~20 floors); blocked to the southwest by the two loft buildings (~15-20 floors). The only view corridor would be straight south down Indiana. It's easier to sell/lease a unit with a view vs. one without a view (assuming comparable units). There might be a small view corridor E between OMP and T4.

How many units did they say were going on the 1300 lot and include a park? 100? It's not possible to put 100 townhouses there and a park. I'm not specifically correct but directionally I think MP Tower 2 has 170 units and it's ~20 floors on a similarly sized lot. How many townhomes surround MPT1 on a larger lot? 40? My guess is that CH will build some sort of structure with townhouses and a mid-rise building. (The mid-rise for this lot from 'The Chicago' design would be cool on this lot. If I recall correctly, can't find a picture)

I'm not suggesting I like only townhouses on that lot - because I don't. I'm suggesting it's less risky from CH's perspective to allocate more units along Roosevelt.

I think it was a mistake they didn't include a hotel for either one of their buildings along Roosevelt. Having an outdoor/rooftop (halfway up the building...) bar/restaurant would have been a destination. Look at Cindy's, the new rooftop at LondonHouse, 16 @ Trump, J Parker, the Wit, etc. etc. The view is incredible from that perspective looking north at the entire city.

Does anyone know what the zoning is for the lot where Crescent Heights' existing apartment building is at 1212 S Michigan and what type of building could be built there (obviously extremely long term)?

Anyone hear any rumors for the lot to the south of the old Firehouse restaurant at 14th and Michigan? There used to be a 'For Sale' sign on the lot but it's been removed. Think that's a relatively large lot.

Mr Downtown Mar 12, 2016 8:52 PM

It's downtown Chicago. Zoning and planning have nothing to do with it. They could presumably go to 2000 feet, with an FAR somewhere in the 20s.

SamInTheLoop Mar 15, 2016 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7367888)
Exactly. Having despoiled Grant Park by putting all their units in towers with jetliner views, they have to piss away the final parcel on a useless little dog-poop park and some townhouses. It's why we say that Chicago has a Department of Planning and Development, where the Planning is silent.


True, but we do have an elected body of 50 planners, remember.....

SamInTheLoop Mar 15, 2016 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Baron (Post 7368778)
Anyone hear any rumors for the lot to the south of the old Firehouse restaurant at 14th and Michigan? There used to be a 'For Sale' sign on the lot but it's been removed. Think that's a relatively large lot.


There's a rendering that was floating around recently for a residential high-rise I think in the mid-high teens in terms of no. of floors, for east side of Michigan, in this vicinity....not certain if that is the exact parcel you're referring to, but it very well may be.....someone else here will know......

SamInTheLoop Mar 16, 2016 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Baron (Post 7368778)
I have a different perspective. Crescent Heights was smart, from an investors' perspective, to allocate more units to the parcels along Roosevelt which have substantially better views than the lot on the 1300 block of Indiana.

The 1300 lot is blocked to the north by The Grant (~54 floors) and OMP (~62 floors); blocked to the east by Museum Park Tower 4 (~35-40 floors); blocked to the west by Sky55 (~40 floors) and the red brick mid-rise (~15 floors); blocked to the southeast by MP Tower 1 (~20 floors) and Museum Pointe (~26 floors) and to a lesser extent MP T2 (~20 floors); blocked to the southwest by the two loft buildings (~15-20 floors). The only view corridor would be straight south down Indiana. It's easier to sell/lease a unit with a view vs. one without a view (assuming comparable units). There might be a small view corridor E between OMP and T4.

How many units did they say were going on the 1300 lot and include a park? 100? It's not possible to put 100 townhouses there and a park. I'm not specifically correct but directionally I think MP Tower 2 has 170 units and it's ~20 floors on a similarly sized lot. How many townhomes surround MPT1 on a larger lot? 40? My guess is that CH will build some sort of structure with townhouses and a mid-rise building. (The mid-rise for this lot from 'The Chicago' design would be cool on this lot. If I recall correctly, can't find a picture)

I'm not suggesting I like only townhouses on that lot - because I don't. I'm suggesting it's less risky from CH's perspective to allocate more units along Roosevelt.

I think it was a mistake they didn't include a hotel for either one of their buildings along Roosevelt. Having an outdoor/rooftop (halfway up the building...) bar/restaurant would have been a destination. Look at Cindy's, the new rooftop at LondonHouse, 16 @ Trump, J Parker, the Wit, etc. etc. The view is incredible from that perspective looking north at the entire city.

Does anyone know what the zoning is for the lot where Crescent Heights' existing apartment building is at 1212 S Michigan and what type of building could be built there (obviously extremely long term)?

Anyone hear any rumors for the lot to the south of the old Firehouse restaurant at 14th and Michigan? There used to be a 'For Sale' sign on the lot but it's been removed. Think that's a relatively large lot.


Very good point on Crescent Heights' potential motivation for doing so.....and, to bring in Mr Downtown's point - this is where a city planning department should come in and say that townhomes on the 1300 block of S Indiana do not work.....we're looking for something at least in the 20+ story range there, etc......thereby forcing developer to shave some density off the grant park fronting towers and add it back to the 1300 block (or if the city/alderman is amenable to any further boost in density for the overall pd, if even possible (if not, then they juggle around existing allotted FAR to accomodate high rise in 1300 block).....

ChickeNES Mar 28, 2016 5:43 PM

Apparently there was another public meeting about this tower yesterday, luckily Sloopin has a report: http://www.sloopin.com/2016/03/town-...t-heights.html
  • Phase I of the project is scheduled to begin in June 2016
  • There will be approximately 100 paid parking spaces available to the public on a daily basis
  • Phase II is expected to have some commercial/retail space on the lower floors
  • All units in Phase I are being built to "Condo specifications" and may be sold as condominiums at a later date in the future.

Also:
Quote:

- The vacant lot at 13th and Indiana will be made into green space until it is developed. At this time, the lot at 13th and Indiana is considered Phase III and they do not anticipate building on it for at least 3-4 years. There are no current plans or renderings for this lot. The lot is zoned for a 180 foot building (approx. 15 stories) and will include a 12,000 sq. ft. park in the South West corner. The park will be turned over to the Chicago Park District upon completion of construction.
Maybe the 1300 lot will be a tower after all?

ChiHi Apr 7, 2016 5:00 PM

Looks like some neighborhood group that I've never heard of started a petition about the project. Like most NIMBY groups I'm sure their lack of good points is made up for with lots of passion. Other than the parking count I'm pretty much on board with the tower.

http://southloop.webs.com/

Jibba Apr 7, 2016 6:20 PM

^There's nothing unreasonable about their concerns, save for point #4. I can't possibly understand how someone can expect to prohibit the production of homes because of the effect that the increase in supply will have to their own home value. That's an embarrassing plea to air publicly.

rlw777 Apr 8, 2016 2:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba (Post 7399015)
^There's nothing unreasonable about their concerns, save for point #4. I can't possibly understand how someone can expect to prohibit the production of homes because of the effect that the increase in supply will have to their own home value. That's an embarrassing plea to air publicly.

It gets a little more ridiculous on the petition page where they claim that

Quote:

adequate notice to neighborhood residents was not given and most residents were not aware of the scope, details and timeline of this project.
This was a high profile announcement there is no reason they shouldn't have gotten their shit together a while ago.

Kumdogmillionaire Apr 8, 2016 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba (Post 7399015)
^There's nothing unreasonable about their concerns, save for point #4. I can't possibly understand how someone can expect to prohibit the production of homes because of the effect that the increase in supply will have to their own home value. That's an embarrassing plea to air publicly.

Point two is total bullshit too in my opinion. The North Side of the park has the exact same situation, just more buildings.

Point 3 is kind of stupid too, they are over estimating what 1200 parked cars will actually lead to in terms of traffic.

Really the only legit gripe I see is point 1 because of the previously built buildings, but not really too concerned with their loss

GregBear24 Apr 8, 2016 6:00 PM

There are only 2 legitimate gripes about this tower. (1) there may be slightly too much parking. (2) the top of the building could look a bit less awkward. Given its location, there's nothing else legitimate to complain about let alone protest.

emathias Apr 8, 2016 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7400503)
...
Point 3 is kind of stupid too, they are over estimating what 1200 parked cars will actually lead to in terms of traffic.
...

1,200 parking spaces 2 blocks from a major subway and 'L' combo station, next to all the buses of Michigan Avenue, and walking distance to most necessities and parkland, is simply unnecessary and motivates car owners to live there and drive places as opposed to people dedicated (or resigned) to living car-free and supporting the walkability of the immediate neighborhood.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.