SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 195 N Columbus (LSE) | 502 FT | 47 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=213523)

chris08876 Oct 4, 2014 11:50 PM

CHICAGO | 195 N Columbus (LSE) | 502 FT | 47 FLOORS
 
view from NE:
https://files.constantcontact.com/5a...7b168bb761.png

view from NW:
https://files.constantcontact.com/5a...f1de7c7c05.png






older renderings:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zdb1...Parcel_O_4.jpg

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/BlzY...Parcel_O_3.jpg


____________________________________________

OLD PROPOSAL:

Skyscraper Inbound for Lakeshore East



http://imageshack.com/a/img745/2774/trtjiZ.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img631/4798/UpuGmx.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img538/5254/wAYFSY.jpg


http://chicago.curbed.com/uploads/LSE.png
Lakeshore East master plan map courtesy of Magellan Development

Quote:

The Lakeshore East neighborhood between the Loop and the lake probably isn't one of the most well-known of Chicago's many self-contained communities, but for skyscraper-watchers it's been one of the most exciting few blocks in town. Already home to Studio Gang's famous Aqua tower with another Gang tower likely to soon join it, the planned development conceived as a neighborhood of skyscrapers looks to be gaining yet another. According to bid-monitoring services and also reported by the Chicago Architecture Blog, Magellan Development and McHugh construction are taking bids for an unspecified 60-story mixed use tower "located at the southwest corner of Lakeshore East Park," a description that could only apply to Lakeshore East's infamous "Site O," the narrow strip of undeveloped dirt along Columbus between the Blue Cross Blue Shield building and Aqua tower.

Site O was once thought to be the location of the long-rumored Gang supertall tower, which now appears to be planned for the north end of Lakeshore East instead. Other rumors have flown around about the site for ages, with lots of speculation about whether it would even be possible to build something suitably tall in such a narrow space without the cooperation of the BCBS tower's owners and without disrupting the views of the hotshots who live in Aqua. The rumors began to solidify about a month ago, when we started hearing reports of ground surveying crews taking measurements of the site.

Now, with McHugh and Magellan actively shopping for subcontractors, it seems we can move the long-awaited Site O project from the "rumor" column to the "lookin' pretty good" column. Unfortunately, other than the building having 60 floors and being mixed-use, we don't have any specifics on the design or use. Hopefully Magellan will make an announcement pretty soon, as according to the request for bids they plan to start construction in May 2015.
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/w...9-1024x682.jpg

Quote:

Building O (201 North Columbus Drive) is the newest skyscraper coming to Lakeshore East, the upscale waterside enclave that sprouts skyscrapers like zits on a sweaty teenager’s back. “Building O” is a terrible name. Going back to when Lakeshore East was originally laid out in the 1970′s, all of the future buildings were given a letter until they could later be given a name. It was a good idea, because if the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company has been allowed to actually name the buildings when it laid them out back in 1978, we’d have skyscrapers called The Coleco, The Lowenbrau, and the Hervé Villechaize Towers. Instead Lakeshore East ended up with sensible names like 340 on the Park, The Shoreham, and The Chandler. Oh, wait…

Building O is going to be big. It gets slotted into that gaping five-story-deep hole just south of Aqua. That space is zoned for a tower up to 900 feet tall. Before Aqua was built, its space had the same ceiling. Aqua ended up 83 stories and 870 feet tall. Building O is going to ruin an awful lot of views from the Aqua tower.

[...]
===============================
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...ge-skyscraper/
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...shore-east.php

Randomguy34 Oct 5, 2014 3:06 AM

I still can't wrap my head on how it's only going to be 60 floors if there will be 574 apartments and 684 hotel rooms.

Onn Oct 5, 2014 3:25 AM

Make the Tower 950-975 feet and I'm in. That is one of a few prime location's left.

untitledreality Oct 5, 2014 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6756075)
Make the Tower 950-975 feet and I'm in. That is one of a few prime location's left.

Prime? Few?

You don't even have to leave the Lakeshore East complex to find three vacant sites which are many magnitudes more desirable.

Kngkyle Oct 5, 2014 6:08 AM

Suppose I'll relay the information I posted on the compilation thread here..

574 apartments, 684 hotel rooms. 10,000 sq ft of retail, 4,000 of it facing LSE park. 197 parking spaces below Upper Columbus drive. Parking will be an extension of the Aqua parking structure and accessed through the Aqua entries and ramps. Podium will have "food and beverage outlets" in addition to the usual lobbies, ballroom, amenities, etc. LEED Silver. bKL is the architect.

Deadline for sub contractor bids is 10/10/14, construction start date set for May 2015.

aaron38 Oct 5, 2014 11:34 PM

Hello, exciting news.
If this building is only 60 stories, then I don't see it being taller than BCBS, especially if the counting starts from ground level instead of from Upper Columbus. Thus, Aqua shouldn't lose any views.

Will be exciting to see the renders come in.

UPChicago Oct 6, 2014 4:26 AM

bkl doesn't excite me, hopefully I'm surprised....

LouisVanDerWright Oct 6, 2014 1:56 PM

Quote:

574 apartments, 684 hotel rooms. 10,000 sq ft of retail, 4,000 of it facing LSE park. 197 parking spaces below Upper Columbus drive. Parking will be an extension of the Aqua parking structure and accessed through the Aqua entries and ramps. Podium will have "food and beverage outlets" in addition to the usual lobbies, ballroom, amenities, etc. LEED Silver. bKL is the architect.
Something about these numbers seems funny. Aqua has 747 residential units and 225 hotel rooms, yet is 80 floors. This building will have 1,250 total units (250 more than Aqua) and only be 60 floors. Aqua is about the same width as this site, but isn't as long as this site. What this indicates to me is that this building is going to be an absolute slab. How else are they going to cram 20+ units on each floor?

I'm not complaining about it, but I think it's pretty clear that this building needs to be pretty much lot line to lot line in order to accommodate that many units in only 60 floors. Absolutely loving the density though, between that and filing the last hole along Columbus, this is sure to inject some big time streetlife into the area. In terms of unit count, this will be the biggest building in LSE with 25% more units than Aqua. Will probably have a similar SF to Aqua since hotel rooms are smaller than apartments and apartments are usually smaller than condos.

rlw777 Oct 6, 2014 1:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 6757131)
bkl doesn't excite me, hopefully I'm surprised....

Agreed. This is going to be another well designed but boring glass box. Like WP west, like the Coast, and 200 N Michigan ave.

SamInTheLoop Oct 6, 2014 2:52 PM

^^ Yep - it is going to be a wide tower for sure (or maybe I mean long, as you're using it) the eastern facade afaik may go just about to the park drive (in other words, even further east than the light blue footprint in the map goes). Western facade of the tower itself probably set back from Columbus (but even so, look how long the overall site is, if you're going all the way to the park drive - it's very long). So yes, massive slab - I love it.

Another way to think about how large (not necessarily tall - just in terms of sq ft) this tower could be - it has more residential units than Coast - maybe 50 more??, and oh, yeah, then throw in almost 700 hotel rooms split among two flags (and all the associated common area/amenity space those two flags may need! This is the type of density we need much more of.

Totally agree as well with your previous assessment of Magellan needing to go back to the city for additional density in LSE at some point in the future. I've realized this since at least Aqua, if not before. Combination of no office towers, plus building somewhat taller/denser than originally envisioned does mean that they will run out of entitlements before they put up some of the last towers along LSD.....strategically better for them to wait until they need them to build on those parcels (what is the city going to do, insist that these remain prairie?, of course a deal will be worked out....


^ To me, boring seems harsh for bKL's work, I suppose if your mindset is that you are looking for avant garde or something as a baseline for new towers, than perhaps I understand your assessment, but that's not my starting point in taking in new tower designs.......

Chi-Sky21 Oct 6, 2014 3:36 PM

Workers at BCBS offices will have great views into units of whoever lives at site O. 8)

LouisVanDerWright Oct 6, 2014 4:50 PM

I think bKL's work is pretty nice actually, I certainly wouldn't call GEM's boring. Sure Coast is very minimalist, but the detailing is fantastic. Wolf Point isn't even built yet, but the massive colonnade they are building along the river right now is looking like it will be anything but boring.


Sam, I like your assessment, but how about this comparison: The apartment tower going up at Block 37 has 690 units in 34 story tower which is also almost exactly the same footprint of this site and also will have an average of slightly over 20 units per floor. This tower will basically equal B37 X 2.

I'm willing to bet this tower will break the Low-end-burg model of ultra low ceiling heights to some degree given the location. I can't see them keeping heights low with so few corner units. They need to maximize light to the interior if it's going to be a massive slab or they are going to have a bunch of pretty undesirable units on their hands. I imagine this will be around 700' from the Park level and like 650' from upper Columbus resulting in interior ceiling heights around 9' instead of the 8.5' heights in Aqua and earlier towers.

Or maybe they've found a way to create more angles in the design and thereby open up the units to more light. Either way looking forward to seeing the design solution they've come up with for this unique site. We could end up with something with the massing of a slightly shorter BCBS that has been sliced in half the long ways. Pretty awesome.

ardecila Oct 6, 2014 6:15 PM

8'6" ceiling heights. The design is basically a slab that fills the lot, but set back 120' from Columbus.

The facade has kind of a two-face design that makes it look like Seagram Building and Citicorp Center are spooning... long continuous balconies like Coast are prominent on certain portions.

wierdaaron Oct 6, 2014 6:30 PM

Site today: (click for big)

http://i.imgur.com/wiRFzuDl.jpg

You can see the work they just started doing to the stairs on the SE corner of Aqua's property. Pretty sure they're adding an elevator.

SamInTheLoop Oct 6, 2014 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6757787)
8'6" ceiling heights. The design is basically a slab that fills the lot, but set back 120' from Columbus.

The facade has kind of a two-face design that makes it look like Seagram Building and Citicorp Center are spooning... long continuous balconies like Coast are prominent on certain portions.



You had me at Seagram.


But seriously, what is Magellan's deal with going with substandard/sub-market ceiling heights still? This isn't 1998 anymore. (news flash - higher ceilings actually make a large difference in the perception of how spacious an apartment is - and the market - everyone except for Magellan - has picked up on that in a big way over the last decade-plus). Sure, you cheap out and save on construction costs upfront, but Magellan being a longer-term player/operator as well surely must realize the inherant risk here with going lower than market (and making apartments 'feel' more cramped, thus missing out on a definite degree of NOI upside).........or, do they just feel that their location is so good here - which objectively it is - it is quite fantastic - that they can 'afford' this substandard/market aspect??

Ryanrule Oct 6, 2014 7:44 PM

they will just charge high rents anyway, setting the standard that even crappy apartments are super expensive.

Ch.G, Ch.G Oct 7, 2014 2:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 6757131)
bkl doesn't excite me, hopefully I'm surprised....

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6757320)
Agreed. This is going to be another well designed but boring glass box. Like WP west, like the Coast, and 200 N Michigan ave.

Boxes are ubiquitous in Chicago because they make sense. This isn't New York where developers can afford novel studies in form for the sole purpose of differentiating their product; and (thank God) this also (mostly) isn't Miami or Toronto where superficial flourishes are offered up as the poor man's Architecture with a capital A instead. If you're going to deviate from the box in this city, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. Hell, part of the genius of Aqua is that it embraces the box as a starting point. (And I'd argue that the majority of people who dislike Aqua fail to appreciate this fact.)

IMO, looking at what's going up in other cities, I firmly believe that bKL are among the best designers of tall buildings in the country. They understand materials; the understand details; they understand subtlety and restraint. They're one of only a few firms to successfully translate the Miesian aesthetic into the 21st Century. And considering how many pretenders to his throne have abased the glass box since its advent, I think they're playing a very valuable role in doing so.

wierdaaron Oct 7, 2014 2:58 AM

They've also been very prolific in town lately. For a young company they've been producing a huge amount of prominent-ish buildings in a short amount of time. I'm hopeful to see what they've got for this one.

r18tdi Oct 7, 2014 3:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6757857)
But seriously, what is Magellan's deal with going with substandard/sub-market ceiling heights still? This isn't 1998 anymore. (news flash - higher ceilings actually make a large difference in the perception of how spacious an apartment is - and the market - everyone except for Magellan - has picked up on that in a big way over the last decade-plus). Sure, you cheap out and save on construction costs upfront, but Magellan being a longer-term player/operator as well surely must realize the inherant risk here with going lower than market (and making apartments 'feel' more cramped, thus missing out on a definite degree of NOI upside).........or, do they just feel that their location is so good here - which objectively it is - it is quite fantastic - that they can 'afford' this substandard/market aspect??

Doesn't Aqua have soul-crushingly low ceilings as well?

Kenmore Oct 7, 2014 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 6758525)
Boxes are ubiquitous in Chicago because they make sense. This isn't New York where developers can afford novel studies in form for the sole purpose of differentiating their product; and (thank God) this also (mostly) isn't Miami or Toronto where superficial flourishes are offered up as the poor man's Architecture with a capital A instead. If you're going to deviate from the box in this city, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. Hell, part of the genius of Aqua is that it embraces the box as a starting point. (And I'd argue that the majority of people who dislike Aqua fail to appreciate this fact.)

IMO, looking at what's going up in other cities, I firmly believe that bKL are among the best designers of tall buildings in the country. They understand materials; the understand details; they understand subtlety and restraint. They're one of only a few firms to successfully translate the Miesian aesthetic into the 21st Century. And considering how many pretenders to his throne have abased the glass box since its advent, I think they're playing a very valuable role in doing so.

feeling this post and completely agree

Ryanrule Oct 7, 2014 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 6758586)
Doesn't Aqua have soul-crushingly low ceilings as well?


yup, and cookie cutter layouts, cookie cutter appliances, cookie cutter finishes.

still obscene rent.

UPChicago Oct 7, 2014 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 6758525)
Boxes are ubiquitous in Chicago because they make sense. This isn't New York where developers can afford novel studies in form for the sole purpose of differentiating their product; and (thank God) this also (mostly) isn't Miami or Toronto where superficial flourishes are offered up as the poor man's Architecture with a capital A instead. If you're going to deviate from the box in this city, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. Hell, part of the genius of Aqua is that it embraces the box as a starting point. (And I'd argue that the majority of people who dislike Aqua fail to appreciate this fact.)

IMO, looking at what's going up in other cities, I firmly believe that bKL are among the best designers of tall buildings in the country. They understand materials; the understand details; they understand subtlety and restraint. They're one of only a few firms to successfully translate the Miesian aesthetic into the 21st Century. And considering how many pretenders to his throne have abased the glass box since its advent, I think they're playing a very valuable role in doing so.

:rolleyes: So we are embracing the box now?

Steely Dan Oct 7, 2014 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 6758941)
:rolleyes: So we are embracing the box now?

chicago has always embraced the box, and i would guess that it always will.

boxes are economical and efficient, that's why so many of them get built.

SamInTheLoop Oct 7, 2014 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 6758525)
Boxes are ubiquitous in Chicago because they make sense. This isn't New York where developers can afford novel studies in form for the sole purpose of differentiating their product; and (thank God) this also (mostly) isn't Miami or Toronto where superficial flourishes are offered up as the poor man's Architecture with a capital A instead. If you're going to deviate from the box in this city, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. Hell, part of the genius of Aqua is that it embraces the box as a starting point. (And I'd argue that the majority of people who dislike Aqua fail to appreciate this fact.)

IMO, looking at what's going up in other cities, I firmly believe that bKL are among the best designers of tall buildings in the country. They understand materials; the understand details; they understand subtlety and restraint. They're one of only a few firms to successfully translate the Miesian aesthetic into the 21st Century. And considering how many pretenders to his throne have abased the glass box since its advent, I think they're playing a very valuable role in doing so.


Well done.

rlw777 Oct 7, 2014 2:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 6758525)
Boxes are ubiquitous in Chicago because they make sense. This isn't New York where developers can afford novel studies in form for the sole purpose of differentiating their product; and (thank God) this also (mostly) isn't Miami or Toronto where superficial flourishes are offered up as the poor man's Architecture with a capital A instead. If you're going to deviate from the box in this city, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. Hell, part of the genius of Aqua is that it embraces the box as a starting point. (And I'd argue that the majority of people who dislike Aqua fail to appreciate this fact.)

IMO, looking at what's going up in other cities, I firmly believe that bKL are among the best designers of tall buildings in the country. They understand materials; the understand details; they understand subtlety and restraint. They're one of only a few firms to successfully translate the Miesian aesthetic into the 21st Century. And considering how many pretenders to his throne have abased the glass box since its advent, I think they're playing a very valuable role in doing so.

To be clear my comment was not about boxy buildings in Chicago. Nor was I deriding the quality of BKL designs as is pretty clear from my assertion that the building will be well designed. Their designs are very solid and are also mostly forgettable. I'm not advocating for Miami, Dubai, or China here. But it would be nice to see bkl taking some more design risks.

UPChicago Oct 7, 2014 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 6758950)
chicago has always embraced the box, and i would guess that it always will.

boxes are economical and efficient, that's why so many of them get built.

I don't have contempt for boxes but most are not interesting to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6759015)
To be clear my comment was not about boxy buildings in Chicago. Nor was I deriding the quality of BKL designs as is pretty clear from my assertion that the building will be well designed. Their designs are very solid and are also mostly forgettable. I'm not advocating for Miami, Dubai, or China here. But it would be nice to see bkl taking some more design risks.

This is my view of this as well.

wierdaaron Oct 7, 2014 6:03 PM

More exciting site pictures.

http://i.imgur.com/LUiUm9yl.jpg

Free building materials:
http://i.imgur.com/kxTfTWsl.jpg

Free pillows and shoes:
http://i.imgur.com/FOS4Ffjl.jpg

LouisVanDerWright Oct 7, 2014 7:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 6758950)
chicago has always embraced the box

Chicago

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_Building.JPG
wikipedia

Has

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...00905-003a.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

ALWAYS

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...-5-500x400.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

Embraced

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...Center-002.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

The

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...MPlaza-003.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

BOX

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/w...-2012-001a.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.org

UPChicago Oct 7, 2014 10:54 PM

Love it, wish you had included AON, which was one of my favorite buildings growing up.

HomrQT Oct 7, 2014 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 6759738)
Love it, wish you had included AON, which was one of my favorite buildings growing up.

I thought for sure I'd see the Aon Center scrolling down. =p

But the point was made very well. We are a city that has embraced boxy buildings and I'm cool with that. I can respect efficiency... not to be confused with being cheap.

ardecila Oct 8, 2014 1:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 6758525)
Boxes are ubiquitous in Chicago because they make sense. This isn't New York where developers can afford novel studies in form for the sole purpose of differentiating their product; and (thank God) this also (mostly) isn't Miami or Toronto where superficial flourishes are offered up as the poor man's Architecture with a capital A instead.

Funny you mention Miami... Most of bKL's work (and really most of LSE) reminds me of Arquitectonica in their more restrained moments. From what I've seen of the Site O design, it also has a certain Miami vibe - mainly in the design of balconies and the prominent white color.

UPChicago Oct 8, 2014 1:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6759938)
Funny you mention Miami... Most of bKL's work (and really most of LSE) reminds me of Arquitectonica in their more restrained moments. From what I've seen of the Site O design, it also has a certain Miami vibe - mainly in the design of balconies and the prominent white color.

Are we going to have to have you draw it on a napkin? :haha:

ardecila Oct 8, 2014 2:25 AM

No, LVDW needs to draw it on a napkin from my description!

LouisVanDerWright Oct 8, 2014 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6760020)
No, LVDW needs to draw it on a napkin from my description!

Ugh, Ok fine, what's it look like...

:P

wierdaaron Oct 8, 2014 4:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6760116)
Ugh, Ok fine, what's it look like...

:P

"A big, floating ball that lit up with every color of the rainbow, plus some new ones that were so beautiful I fell to my knees and cried."

LouisVanDerWright Oct 8, 2014 4:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6760127)
"A big, floating ball that lit up with every color of the rainbow, plus some new ones that were so beautiful I fell to my knees and cried."

In that case I'll just post my headshot... Lol.

scalziand Oct 8, 2014 4:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6760116)
Ugh, Ok fine, what's it look like...

:P

If you're serious...:shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6757787)
8'6" ceiling heights. The design is basically a slab that fills the lot, but set back 120' from Columbus.

The facade has kind of a two-face design that makes it look like Seagram Building and Citicorp Center are spooning... long continuous balconies like Coast are prominent on certain portions.


123fakestreet Oct 8, 2014 2:30 PM

...

SamInTheLoop Oct 8, 2014 2:35 PM

^ It's just not where the modern market is. 8'6" isn't bad if your frame of reference is in the 7's, but this is 2014, and renters understand and value higher ceilings today. Myself, having lived in a building with approx. 9'6" ceilings for several years, 8'6" would be simply off the table - no mattre the size of the unit, it would fee more cramped and smaller than it is, and I would probably at least for a while, feel uncomfortable - but I would never consider moving into it in the first place. Now that's just me, but I have a feeling there's a good part of the market coming from the same place (not my unit, put state of mind!)....

UPChicago Oct 8, 2014 2:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 123fakestreet (Post 6760501)
Are 8-6 ceilings really that bad?

When you are 6'2" then yes....

Ryanrule Oct 8, 2014 6:08 PM

my concern is they will try to maximize the economical potential is if was a great building, even though it will be an ok building, helping set the new normal that mediocre apartments can command top tier rent.

BVictor1 Oct 9, 2014 4:59 AM

Don't expect the same low ceiling heights in this building or in future buildings in LSE. Apparently they got a lot of flack for the low ceilings in Aqua.

More than likely they'll be about 9'-6".

Steely Dan Oct 9, 2014 6:41 PM

i cleared all of the distracting aqua nonsense from this thread.

let's get back to discussion of 201 N columbus

SamInTheLoop Oct 14, 2014 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 6761790)
Don't expect the same low ceiling heights in this building or in future buildings in LSE. Apparently they got a lot of flack for the low ceilings in Aqua.

More than likely they'll be about 9'-6".


Althought it wouldn't surprise me if Magellan has been hearing negative comments in the market regarding their standard ceiling heights, Ardecila certainly seems to be very much in the know regarding this proposal and its design, and according to his post (#13 in this thread), ceiling heights for this tower will be 8'6"..........disappointly............

Their LSE projects have been quite financially successful, and as I've been pointing out, "O" is a phenominally well located site, so Magellan may just not care........perhaps they'll just march on - building lower than market, making residents and guests feel more cramped than than they necessarily need to - all the way to the bank.....

I mostly don't care I suppose - I won't ever live there for certain if those are in fact the ceiling heights, and I won't be staying there, as I live in Chicago.....only drawback is their towers are of course shorter than if they built to current broad market standards.....

123fakestreet Oct 14, 2014 6:22 PM

...

wierdaaron Oct 14, 2014 6:32 PM

^It might have decent views of the lake to the E/NE.

Without the prestige of a Gang design and stellar views, I'm guessing the main draw here will be location. I don't know how ceiling height factors into that algebra... but: remember the Howard Johnson Inn tower in river north? That's designed by bKL and developed by Magellan, and they recently went through a revision that dropped 3 stories in order to heighten the ceilings. Maybe Magellan got the message.

Ryanrule Oct 15, 2014 1:34 PM

low ceilings havent capped rental rates. they just rent them as if they had 15 foot ceilings and proper (non-ge) appliances.

the urban politician Oct 15, 2014 2:05 PM

The appeal here is about location. Let's be honest, this is a stellar location. I would live here in a heartbeat if I had the chance

LouisVanDerWright Oct 15, 2014 2:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6768074)
^It might have decent views of the lake to the E/NE.

Without the prestige of a Gang design and stellar views, I'm guessing the main draw here will be location. I don't know how ceiling height factors into that algebra... but: remember the Howard Johnson Inn tower in river north? That's designed by bKL and developed by Magellan, and they recently went through a revision that dropped 3 stories in order to heighten the ceilings. Maybe Magellan got the message.

The HoJo is probably getting a ceiling height increase because they will eventually (or before construction completes) go condo with it. Obviously they've built low ceilings in condos before, but I think that's the clear reasoning with that tower.

SamInTheLoop Oct 16, 2014 3:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 123fakestreet (Post 6768043)
I, personally, don't understand why people think site o is a good spot. It has BCBS just south of it and Aqua just to the north. There are no N/S views for 800+ feet in both directions. Then there's Aon to the SW and some other good sized buildings very close by blocking other views.

As far as ceiling height, I don't think it makes sense for tall ceilings for the hotel part of the building. Does anyone really look into that before booking a room? For the apartment side, I think higher ceilings would help but also also think the poor views are going to cap rental rates anyway. My guess is they'll go with 8-6 to 9-6 just like coast/aqua/340otp and their other buildings in LSE.

For the building design, I think a split tower look like 600 lake shore would be the best idea with the hotel entrance on Columbus and the apt entrance on lower Columbus and/or the circle below. Then they can share a pool/other amenities in the middle.


It sounds as if you're equating view with location. There is obviously much, much more to a location than the views it offers. TUP is right - this is a stellar location all-around.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:03 AM.

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