SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | LSE - Site I | 950 FT | 85 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229046)

ithakas Jul 14, 2017 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 7864241)
There's actually a tiny separate lot between these two buildings. I checked the zoning because I thought it was strange also.

Nice – I'll gladly take another 5-10 years of seeing The Chandler's party wall if it means they slip a narrow mid-rise in there. It's exactly the kind of granular development lacking in an area like LSE.

BVictor1 Jul 17, 2017 3:42 AM

For those interested in the slideshow presentation and sending in comments:

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...arcelsIJKL.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf


Email: development@ward42chicago.com

sentinel Jul 17, 2017 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7867073)
For those interested in the slideshow presentation and sending in comments:

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...arcelsIJKL.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf


Email: development@ward42chicago.com

Thanks BVic!
I love the fact that they included a number of drawings related to view corridors, to shut up people who bring up that issue during community meetings...unless that's now fairly common, to which I was unaware of..

trvlr70 Jul 17, 2017 7:40 PM

I remain deeply disturbed by the party wall on the Chandler. According to all these diagrams, there is no intention of building anything to cover up that ugly (and so visible) scar.

Zerton Jul 17, 2017 7:53 PM

.

delete

the urban politician Jul 17, 2017 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70 (Post 7867641)
I remain deeply disturbed by the party wall on the Chandler. According to all these diagrams, there is no intention of building anything to cover up that ugly (and so visible) scar.

Taking care of that is not going to be an issue if there is a will to eliminate it

BVictor1 Jul 17, 2017 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70 (Post 7867641)
I remain deeply disturbed by the party wall on the Chandler. According to all these diagrams, there is no intention of building anything to cover up that ugly (and so visible) scar.

Send an email to the alderman with your aesthetic concerns.

vegeta_skyline Aug 28, 2017 7:48 AM

Cutting edge design, great spot for more density.

BVictor1 Dec 14, 2017 1:20 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...213-story.html

Plan for 80-story tower, two others in Lakeshore East hits roadblock

Ryan OriContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune
December 13, 2017

Quote:

An ambitious plan for three residential high-rises near Lake Michigan, including one that would soar 80 stories, has been shot down by the city’s downtown alderman.

Chicago-based Magellan Development Group and its development partner, Australia’s Lendlease, now must make significant changes to the design to resuscitate plans for the three towers, which would house a combined 1,400 condominiums and apartments.

In an email sent Wednesday to constituents, 42nd Ward Ald. Brendan Reilly wrote that “the project is rejected and will not move forward in its current form.”

Reilly’s decision is a big setback, but not necessarily a death knell, for the next phase of Magellan’s 28-acre Lakeshore East development near the lake and Millennium Park. There are already eight residential high-rises in Lakeshore East.

“The project is stalled until we address the concerns the neighborhood has,” said Magellan’s president, David Carlins. “The alderman delivered us a message that we have a lot of hard work to do, and we’re going to roll up our sleeves and address the concerns.”

aaron38 Dec 14, 2017 4:42 AM

Do we get to know what the concerns are? Or should we just assume it's parking, traffic, density and sunlight.
You know, the four horsemen of the apocolypse.

left of center Dec 14, 2017 4:53 AM

Quote:

Dear Neighbor:

I am writing to provide you with an update regarding LendLease and Magellan Development Group's proposed development of parcels "I, J, K & L" in Planned Development #70 that governs zoning in the Lakeshore East neighborhood.

The initial community meeting attracted over 1,000 residents and lasted more than three hours. In addition - to ensure every resident was afforded an opportunity to raise concerns - I required the Developer to host individual public meetings with every residential building in the neighborhood. Two members of my staff attended every meeting and took very detailed notes.

My office also received hundreds of letters, emails, and calls objecting to the proposal. In addition, I asked every condominium association in Lakeshore East to send me their "punch-lists" of concerns and suggestions related to the project.

After carefully reviewing substantial neighborhood feedback; cataloguing my own concerns regarding the proposal; and after discussions with the City Department of Planning & Development; I have determined this project will not move forward.

My office has informed Magellan & LendLease that their proposal for sites "I, J, K & L" is rejected and will not move forward in its current form.

There are a number of issues that must be resolved by a future proposal for this development site. Some (not all) of those issues include:

Provide more usable, contiguous & active open green space that will serve as a real public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood;

Eliminate the grand staircase & associated zigzag pedestrian path and replace it with a more subtle, meandering path - to allow for the addition of usable green space & reduction of hardscape/pedestrian infrastructure;

Relocate the proposed upper-level Harbor Drive pedestrian access point to the new open green space to improve sight-lines: moving it further north on Harbor & away from the Parkshore's garage and driveway egress;

Address security concerns (especially at the lower access road level) by proposing a staffed guard station on the lower level to monitor pedestrian traffic and activity - as well as regular security patrols throughout the site;

Better define solutions ensuring there are no conflicts between garage access, loading and the proposed pedestrian and bicycle traffic that would occur at the lower level access road that leads toward the Lakefront;

Install fencing between the lower Lake Shore Drive public right-of-way and the property line of sites "I, J, K & L" - while creating one centralized access portal between Magellan site & Lakefront (similar to the required improvements Wanda Vista will make to Riverwalk access at Field Drive);

Properly secure this lower-level Lakefront access portal with the installation of way-finding signage, improved lighting and surveillance cameras that can tie-in to the City's OEMC security camera network; and

Reassess the positioning of towers on the podium and make a greater effort to ensure distances between newly proposed towers and existing buildings are more consistent with setbacks that currently govern the site.

I have shared these concerns (and others) with the Development Team and have explained that they must be properly addressed in any future plans for the site. Once my office receives an updated proposal for this site, we will promptly notify neighborhood residents and proceed with our transparent community process.

It is my pleasure to serve as your Alderman. If we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. I strongly encourage you to sign-up for our weekly e-newsletter at: www.ward42chicago.com for future neighborhood updates.

Sincerely,

Alderman Butthole
Nothing specifically pointing out issues with density, height or traffic concerns.

None of the demands seem insurmountable or a deal breaker by any means. Hopefully this is only a minor bump on the road to approval.

UPChicago Dec 14, 2017 2:52 PM

^those were my thoughts as well also I don't know if they even have the power to go after density given the PD is already in place.

Notyrview Dec 14, 2017 3:37 PM

I always thought this would break ground when Vista is at or near completion, so plenty of time to iron out kinks.

Mr Downtown Dec 14, 2017 6:05 PM

SkyscraperPage: Where asking a developer—one who's applying for a PD amendment—to improve minor urban design aspects of its site plan is considered an outrage.

The crime here is that Chicago's planning department is so badly understaffed that the alderman has to be the one doing site plan review.

Bonsai Tree Dec 14, 2017 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8018840)
SkyscraperPage: Where asking a developer—one who's applying for a PD amendment—to improve minor urban design aspects of its site plan is considered an outrage.

The crime here is that Chicago's planning department is so badly understaffed that the alderman has to be the one doing site plan review.

Sorry Mr. FOT Parking Lot Representative,

But I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the aldermen have too much power, and they abuse their power frequently. If the aldermen had less power then the city could create a truly powerful planning committee.Then we could get rid of NIMBYism once and for all.

JK47 Dec 14, 2017 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8018855)
But I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the aldermen have too much power, and they abuse their power frequently. If the aldermen had less power then the city could create a truly powerful planning committee.Then we could get rid of NIMBYism once and for all.


I may not agree with the decisions often make planning wise and I certainly am in favor of dense urban design but I'm not comfortable with solving these problems by isolating zoning & planning from the democratic process.

Khantilever Dec 14, 2017 7:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8018855)
Sorry Mr. FOT Parking Lot Representative,

But I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the aldermen have too much power, and they abuse their power frequently. If the aldermen had less power then the city could create a truly powerful planning committee.Then we could get rid of NIMBYism once and for all.

I share your goals, and there are many problems associated with the amount of power we have granted Alsermen over zoning. But I have to push back against the idea that taking away that power would reduce NIMBY power.

If zoning was really controlled by the urban planners, we might end up following the lead of other major US cities which end up zoning almost everything too tightly. The advantage of Chicago’s locally-controlled, parcel-by-parcel zoning is that it allows experimentation and a case-by-case evaluation of the costs and benefits.

And, most importantly, it allows for more lobbying by developers. Some people call that a form of corruption, but democracy requires that all stakeholders’ voices be heard. If the benefits to society of a dense development are sufficiently large, it’s tbe developer’s lobbying that helps gain the Alderman’s approval over the voices of a handful of NIMBYs. It’s unlikely that developers would lobby sufficiently for more relaxed zoning if it was controlled centrally.

Bonsai Tree Dec 14, 2017 8:28 PM

^ I understand where you are coming from. The main reason I want to centralize zoning powers is the hope that the government would encourage more affordable developments. These dense, affordable developments would encourage diversity (of economic status) and therefore help stop NIMBYism. Albeit, that is a bit of a perfect world.

HomrQT Dec 15, 2017 3:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK47 (Post 8018870)
I may not agree with the decisions often make planning wise and I certainly am in favor of dense urban design but I'm not comfortable with solving these problems by isolating zoning & planning from the democratic process.

We shouldn't isolate from it completely, but clearly leaving each individual zone at the whim of aldermen who bend over for cries of "my views" and "so much shadow!" has shown that the city overall suffers. There should be fair input from both sides. The continued development of the second largest CBD of the country should not be stifled in this way. Chicago is known for big and tall, and yet we have these people constantly treating it like some midrise resort town and how dare buildings be built taller than 30 floors.

ardecila Dec 15, 2017 7:57 AM

I'm with Mr. D on this. Density was only a minor footnote in Reilly's communique.

Overall it seems like he's genuinely trying to make the development of this site into a better gateway to the lakefront. Maggie Daley Park improved the connection from Millennium Park to Navy Pier somewhat, but this site is still a huge missing link for tourists and Chicagoans alike.

I had similar concerns when Magellan first unveiled the site plan. It's a hugely suburban layout, it just has very tall and sleek buildings in place of squat little garden apartments. Literally half of the so-called "open space" is taken up by individual car dropoffs and private fenced pool areas. I do think the site planning would be better if the buildings were pushed to the edges and a larger green space (or plaza, etc) created in the middle.

Seriously, at such an important site, there's no reason the architects should take this as inspiration:
https://g5-assets-cld-res.cloudinary...erial-home.jpg
src


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:47 AM.

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