CHICAGO | The Row (900 W Randolph) | 495 FT | 43 FLOORS
 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMLLQzPU0AANdkp.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMLLQzPUcAAecnl.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMLLQzSVUAA1Y11.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Unr7d3F.png

http://neighborsofwestloop.com/2017/...lated-midwest/

900 W. Randolph (Related Midwest/Tucker Development)
Posted by WestAdmin Leave a reply
(Refer to a prior presentation on this property here.)

Development Proposal

On Monday, October 9, Curt Bailey, Ann Thompson, and Mike Ellch of Related Midwest and Rich and Aaron Tucker of Tucker Development presented an updated proposal for a high-rise residential project on Peoria Street just north of Randolph. This project is included in the development known as 900 W. Randolph, in which Tucker renovated a group of low-rise office buildings on the block.

Tucker Development had previously proposed a 19-story building on the site in the spring of 2016. They subsequently partnered with Related Midwest, who had recently delivered the 30-story, 303-unit Landmark residential building at 1035 W. Van Buren. The combined team’s proposal is to upzone the entire group of holdings on the block (which excludes Pastorelli Foods on the northwest corner and Leña Brava on the southeast corner) from C1-1 with a 1.46 FAR (maximum allowable height of 38 ft) to DX-5 zoning with an 8.1 FAR. The result is a proposed 570 ft (51-story) structure that includes a 6-story parking pedestal. The increase in density would require a $4M payment to the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund.

Designer Morris Adjmi Architects drew from their experience in the meat packing district of New York and the nearby “L” to develop the building’s composition, which includes steel & glass rising above the brick-shielded podium. The site would have an active retail/restaurant face along Peoria with an amenity level atop the podium.

The developer is considering using a valet parking system with sidewalk bump-outs on Peoria. A traffic study for the site is underway.

When asked what benefit the rezoning would bring, the developer cited the $4M NOF payment but could not identify other positive results for the community.

Committee Feedback

Our committee provided a number of comments for consideration by the development team:

Height is the committee’s primary concern. The group considered this building – which would be the tallest (existing or proposed) West Loop structure west of Halsted by a factor of three – to be too tall, with too much density for the area. Additionally, the group was concerned that this building would set the new height standard for the West Loop.
Members of the committee questioned the technique of reassigning floor area ratio from landmarked building that could never use the FAR to propose a structure of this height.
The parking pedestal was described as unsightly, with its anonymous red brick covering parking as opposed to active uses above the first floor.
Our committee would like more information about how the developer intends to meet the affordable housing requirements.
The group felt that underground parking should be provided for this development, consistent with the West Loop Design Guidelines.
The group liked the curved steel window frames, but did not fully appreciate the other architectural elements.
Concerns were raised about having the service on Peoria, suggesting that a different off-street circulation pattern would be more effective.
Next Steps

A community meeting will be scheduled for this proposed development in the coming weeks or months. The NoWL Development Committee will issue a position letter based on resident feedback collected before and through the community meeting.

This would certainly be the beginning of the end of the Randolph Street "restaurant row", and the West Loop's status as where the cool kids hangout. Especially when the parking garages come and destroy the vibe.

The density is great, but the neighborhood also is opposing the inactive uses above the first floor.

This will see a height chop and likely a positive redesign. When they are done, I’m guessing this project will no longer deserve its own thread.

Great to see the flurry of skyscrapers lately. :cheers:

Lots of the West Loop midrises already have blank walls on the ground floor and sometimes the second floor to conceal parking. So far most of them have been designed decently...

I don't mind this tower specifically, but I appreciate the West Loop as a midrise neighborhood and I don't like the precedent for tall buildings here. Chicago doesn't have any other European-style midrise neighborhoods, and it's not likely that one could be created anywhere else in the city. Any master-planned development will default to highrises and townhouses.

Not really related to this proposal, but: I feel a meme rumbling into the west loop.

1940s --> "Magnificent Mile"
2010s --> "Cultural Mile"
2018 --> "Culinary Mile" ?

Or are there any better ones out there? This came to me while walking down Sangamon after eating really, really well.

I'm thinking we keep up the "ape NYC" theme and start calling this area "West Loop Navy Yards"...

^ I'm right with you regarding blind imitation of yuppie fads that NY barfs out, but the "Yards" suffix is hardly unique to that region. Camden Yards as a redevelopment term dates back essentially to the 1980s, and there's Schuylkill Yards as well. It's just the new (and larger) "Plaza" or "Square" and I think ya gotta give into it. There are better battles to wage, like against skipping 10 numbers in floor count just to sell condos at a higher price...

That works. Though like "Cultural mile" it lacks the alliteration and ability to abbreviate that I think gives "Magnificient Mile" or "Mag Mile" staying power.

"Cultural Mile" sounds like the Cultural Revolution with Bataan Death March vibes. Asian is in right now, let's do it.

How about Michelin Mile instead?

I like it. Now we just need to popularize it.

Why isn't Restaurant Row a good option? I keep reading the sequence of posts and don't see any actual reasons to change it.

If anything, since everything is kind of spreading between Randolph and Fulton along with many of the cross streets, linear names (mile, row, way) probably aren't great in the literal sense.

Michelin Mile in particular is not good though. Too similar to Magnificent Mile phonetically. Also, no need to incorporate a brand name, sounds sponsored. To that end we would eventually end up with Randolph called the McDonalds Mile.

Are there even any Michelin Starred Restaurants on the "restaurant row" part of Randolph?

Edit: Looks like Elske received 1 star, though it is on the 1300 block of Randolph, and quite a ways off the main drag.

there's also grace and blackbird on randolph, but they're both just east of the kennedy and not part of the core of "restaurant row".

Is that a joke? The block is a "C" shape of protected buildings.
Where else would it go?

There's also the Michelin Bib Gourmand list which has five restaurants in the two blocks from Halsted to Peoria (the biggest cluster in the city) and two more nearby (Publican off Fulton and BellyQ at Randolph & Ogden).

There's also Smyth, although it's a block north toward Lake which I suppose makes it debatable since it's not *on* Randolph, but it has two stars.

Here's a handy map:
https://chicago.eater.com/maps/chica...estaurants-map

Restaurant Row is both a very common term and a very general term for a collection of restaurants. If the object is to come up with a distinctive name for the area then we need something that isn't also referring to streets in Elmwood Park or Wheeling.

Yep, I just thought it would be ironic to have a stretch called Michelin Mile without an actual Michelin Starred Restaurant ON randolph; though as someone pointed out, there are quite a few Bib Gourmand restaurants on and near randolph.

I think we were just brainstorming names for fun no real purpose. Restaurant Row is fine though now it's got me thinking that perhaps branding the district with a non-generic name and marketing it toward culinary tourists might actually be a pretty good idea.

I don't see any need for cheesy branding. It is a, rather than the, restaurant row.

Hungry Highway
Boulevard of Bites
Grub Gateway
Culinary Kilometer
Mangia Mile
Palatable Parkway
Delicious Drive
Succulent Street
Fairway of Fare

Hungry hungry highway

Naw, can't you just see it now? "RESTAURANT ROW" in giant neo-industrial neon letters ten feet tall on a "gateway" sign over Randolph??? That's exactly what we need so all the "turists" know where to get their snack on!

There's a weird kind of elitism on this forum that I have to say is very entertaining.

:haha:

And Soho House has invested way too much money in that building for the cool kids to have to pick up and move to a new neighborhood...

What's weird about not wanting to turn interesting neighborhoods into theme parks for tourists?

Welcome to the internet, where everyone is an expert on everything!

51-story Fulton Market high-rise “too tall” says West Loop community group [Curbed]

This is my shocked face.

Nothing really new -- or surprising -- about that.

Welp...before they chop all the height off or cancel the project all together, lets appreciate what could of been.



https://images2.imgbox.com/27/0c/YxU0IPxV_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/f6/b6/Zu9qnIFH_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/cd/4d/kh26sFjy_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/03/0a/SvCFGi6E_o.jpg

It is too tall. Just looking at the proposal objectively, there is no basis for anything so tall there. There is no shortage of land to develop around the core of the city that can house those potential residents - in fact there are plenty of competing developments that need those people.

Isn’t the fact that the developer is interested in building so tall the strongest bit of evidence that there is, indeed, some basis for something so tall? If you’re interested in making the argument that the harm it could do to the neighborhood is great enough that it overwhelms the benefits, that’s fine, make that argument. But it is very costly to build this high - so if the developer is proposing such a development, that’s a sign that there’s really intense demand in this area.

I am sure a developer seeing unobstructed views in every direction could be profitable. That isn't the point. This isn't how well-designed cities are planned or what is necessarily best for the entire urban core.

I have no problem with trying to control development to maintain the character of a neighborhood. But we should also recognize the costs of doing so, and consider whether it’s worth it. Your original statement that there is no shortage of land and competing developments trivializes those trade offs and suggests that we can limit development in high-demand areas at little or no cost to the city overall, as if those other parcels are experiencing the same demand but for some reason aren’t being developed. They’re not.

In other news, water is wet.

This time I kind of agree with them, though. I like the idea of the West Loop as a midrise neighborhood; Chicago doesn't have another one.

At least restrict tall buildings to TODs around CTA stations, so the West Side ends up like the Yonge Street corridor in Toronto (yes, I realize this development would probably be just that around the Morgan L, but you need to establish the zoning regime first).

Nvm, answered my own question.

I am a big fan of tall and slender, but the proportions really seem off to me. I think it would be far more attractive at around 35 stories. I assume that's what the developer is probably shooting for anyway.

Here's the problem with saying a development is "too high". Putting it off only makes it worse. Here's a proposal from last year:
http://neighborsofwestloop.com/2016/...r-development/

They could have had 19 stories, 194ft. By saying no to that, now they're facing 51 stories, 570ft. I wonder if they wish they could get the 19 story proposal back?

And who knows, maybe this is all bait and switch? Get everyone to freak out about 570ft, and then they'll be greatful when it's cut down to "only" 200ft?

I understand your broader point. But I have seen enough of developers simply trying to pack people into whatever the current "hot" neighborhood is or to seek height simply to market views to not feel that every proposal requires a philosophical argument. The developer will come back with a more reasonable proposal and everyone will live just fine.
If someone wants to make the case that the entire area should have been higher density and other development sites de-emphasized because that would have somehow benefited the city, then fine, make that case. But that isn't the direction that has been taken. Or, make the point that the city should plan better overall so that every proposal doesn't lead to these neighborhood arguments and one-off decisions... well, I would certainly support that.
With regard to other sites, I am of the impression that all the big money behind Riverline, 78, Finkl, Tribune, Reese, etc. do expect those areas will experience demand and will be developed, while the Fulton area and near west side has other land as well. So, I am not convinced there is any net loss from not packing more density than currently planned into the West Loop.

I appreciate the fact that many people here want to keep the West Loop as a mid rise neighborhood, since Chicago pretty much lacks in that department, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, when it comes to any development near transit, I'm fine with shooting for the moon when it comes to density. It makes sense to build a huge amount of units next to a busy L stop than one a mile or two away whose residents will most likely be auto dependent regardless of how good the bus service is.

And also, regarding WLCO, maybe this will make them think twice before shooting down any and every proposal that comes their way that's higher than 6 stories. A high profile failure or two against developers aught to bring their collective ego down a notch.

Let Lakeview go complete midrise. Anything touching the loop should be as big as the steel can support.

That blocky podium is a bit much.

From the information, it's 65' tall, and I wouldn't honestly mind seeing that cut in 1/2.

There should be a compromise: the developers place three floors of the parking underground, which would allow for a lower, and more pedestrain friendly base with active use and a slightly shorter tower.

[duplicate]

For Chicago's cultural assets, it needs a walkable, semi-charming neighborhood close to the CBD that residents and visiting folks alike will be able to enjoy as a reprieve from the throng of towers downtown. The West Loop's history makes it one of the obvious candidates, and the requisite zoning overlay has been put into place, so there's no point in violating it now with a 50-story tower.

And Lakeview will never become a mid-rise neighborhood, for myriad reasons too numerous to spell out.

Bronzeville east of MLK and north of Pershing would be another good candidate, but too much of the developable land is controlled by a handful of big developers to make it likely.

I would love to see Dearborn Park redeveloped as all mid rise, a continuation of Printers Row.

Most of the proposed mega developments on the river could also be new mid rise districts, but the developers seem to still favor the tower/townhome combo in parks (as well designed as some of them have been, at least for the conceptual renderings ahead of Amazon).

I'll compromise. Anything East of I-90 can be supertalls, anything West not currently under construction can be midrises.

Ha! I love the ambition, but don't forget that you'd level a lot of charming, historic and walkable neighborhoods for all those new high rises. I wouldn't mind mixing in a lot of taller development into these neighborhoods in areas that are already underdeveloped (empty lots, parking lots, ugly retail strip malls, etc.), especially if they are transit oriented.

My biggest pet peeve right now is the old Cabrini site. Its frustrating how long its taking to redevelop the area. I would absolutely love for the plans to call for high rises, especially along the river and clustered along Clybourn and Division. It would help connect downtown with the North/Clybourn corridor, better integrating the latter into the 'greater downtown' area.

We will probably see mostly lowrises and townhomes unfortunately.

Charming, historic, and walkable neighborhoods...

Damn, you got me. It's like the puppy dog eyes of the architectural world. You guys win. We'll only build on surface lots and torn down parking garages,

But you are absolutely correct that we have underdeveloped areas yearning for new construction that are moving way too slowly.