I agree with the early criticism in one respect: the pinnacles are absolutely horrible and resemble deformed, stunted middle fingers given to the city's front porch. I love the general forms, but the tops of these Vinoly designs are hideous. If he fixes those pinnacles and makes phase 2 a hundred feet taller, I'll be very pleased. Just a shame that the tops of these designs are so mis-shaped and ugly for my personal taste. Totally appreciate those who see no issue, but it bothers me too much to just keep lurking like I normally do. Had to express myself on this rare occasion.

I can't be the only person to recognize that the North elevation and physical model show a completely different upper 25~ floors than the renders can I? Nevermind that the loggias are not displayed in the renders, notice the varying termination points of the tubes, and the absence of the 'trellis' that everyone keeps complaining about.

^good point... at the very least, it implies that the design is probably still very fluid...

I do found it frustrating that the terraces/loggias are so difficult to read in some of the renderings and even in the model...

Eh...this is beyond a nod..this is a Sears ripoff.

The only difference I see is that in the model the "trellis" is fully enclosed. The rest looks compatible with the rendering to me.

The site today during the Chicago Marathon:

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

Cool what's that vacant lot north west of from that site?

That vacant lot is southeast. It's where the sales center for OMP and the other high-rises in the area used to be. Unfortunately the plan is to put a park on the site and wrap it with townhouses.

^ I feel like they would be better off just replacing the park with another highrise and then just cap the Metra tracks adjacent to the skate park so that they can still have more, and I would say better, park space

Going to Plan Commission in November.

Bastards know my face... Look right at me and point at someone else during the brief question session.

This was not the Plan Commission hearing. It was a meeting for residents of the Prairie District. Last I heard, you were not one.

It was a meeting open to anyone bub, recognize...

I know where I live.

The City of Chicago is nobody's private domain. Any and every project affects us all on some way, shape, or form.

Closed off, suburbanized neighborhoods like Dearborn Park, where you live, effect us all as they wall off the street and mess up the grid, which is a hinder to all.

Regardless, I got some of the information I wanted and was able to contribute by expressing my displeasure for parking ingress/egress for 1320 S. Michigan crossing the sidewalk and not being from the alley, which many in the audience agreed with and themselves, didn't think to ask.

Me and you aren't going to get into a discussion that you'll end up losing.

Which you weren't prevented from attending. You just weren't one of the actual neighborhood residents asked to give your opinion.

And yet I did... Eventually. Amazing how persistence works.

Again neighborhoods, especially the ones downtown and cities themselves aren't bubbles. Or at least shouldn't be.

It's a PUBLIC meeting. The emphasis is on the neighborhood but any member of the public who is concerned about the neighborhood is allowed to go to the meeting and voice their opinion.

It is a delicate matter to offer advice to people who haven't asked for any.

If you're not being called on because they recognize you from previous meetings, you might not be doing it as skillfully as you should.

I don't know about this particular meeting, but in general if public officials such as the Alderman are attending, then anybody who pays taxes in the city of Chicago has a right to be heard.

I pay more Chicago taxes than 99% of Chicagoans, and I don't even live in Chicago. I'm paying for cops, teachers, clean up, Alderman's salaries, and all of that corrupt crap that Chicago politicians deal out on a daily basis.

Fine, keep the machine going, keep taxing me more. But then I want more buildings on the tax rolls. To hell with your little neighborhood group, Mr. D. Downtown is where the real taxable dollars lie, and more development there is crucial to the financial well being of the city.

^ That's right, every possible (legal) tactic that can add balance to narrow local nimby concerns and their influence on their alderman (due to the ever insidious aldermanic prerogative) should be deployed......

The more I see the renderings and model here, the less crazy I am about the design (and the more I miss the Saitowitz). I hope Vinoly further refines frankly..........oh, don't get me wrong, if this is final, and no further tweaks are in the cards, then build, build, build (the density here is fantastic) - but I really think this is inferior to Saitowitz' 'The Chicago'.....will have to wait and see how it turns out.......the Crescent Heights rep portrayed this as moving full-steam ahead as far as the capital being lined-up, amendment approvals coming by year-end, and the way he made it sound, as soon as they can get permits issued, they'll be in the ground.......so, maybe even February(ish) groundbreaking??


At any rate, the coming NIMBY battle I'm most jazzed-up about is the Jahn. That, to me, is the big one. That's one to really dig deep and pull out all the stops for!

The alderman's town hall meeting was weeks ago. This was a PDNA meeting to inform their members, not a plebiscite.

Open to out of towners as well? I would love to drive in one day and speak in favor of high density developments like these and against developments like Dearborn park in such proximity to The Loop. I may just be a tourist here but I avoid the South Loop at all costs. That should say something. That type of crap belongs on the other side of the River. And i mean the Des Plaines River.

Seeing as I was eventually called on, I suppose my skills are more skillful and superior than you assume.

Hilarious.

:haha:

Persistence always wins in the end.

Absolutely! There are plenty of locations in Chicagoland with this esthetic and sustainably so. Chicago will only become more and more urban with each passing generation because it is what the global image of prosperity or change is. Imagine what developers could do with projects if they weren't spending money pouring so much damn concrete just for a 2 -3 cars per unit. Its valueless architecture for an urban environment. Eventually the tide will turn. Its quaint to have a 2-3 floor flat building adjacent to a city center but the desire to live in these locations will not permanently allow high rises to build around pockets of hold out neighborhoods without historic value or urban connective charm.

DT Chicago has become increasingly ridiculous to traverse in car, even as much as I want to see downtown it takes a lot of time to negotiate the traffic from all the increased development of the last decade. The solution to this is not of course to have more parking. The solution will require a major transportation style shift from outside the south loop as much as within it which is exactly why you want outsiders coming to these meetings and voicing opinions. These outsiders want to visit your neighborhood, spend money, and potentially buy there.

These same suburban development issues play out in any city of every size in the U.S. save for a very lucky few. In my city with subsidized housing they don't even want new urbanism even if there is a 20 floor building across the street. They instead want ranch homes and 3 car garages on cul-de-sacs, context be damned.

I want to say that I heard the price of this tower will be $400,000,000.

There will be studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, and I believe some four bedrooms too.

^ Yeah, think I heard the same number as to the cost of the project.....

Hey, if this issue concerns you so much, they can always start doing an id and proof-of-address check at the door......something tells me they will not be instituting such, however....

:haha:



Well done.

Developers should build parking spaces with alternative uses in mind.

Typically, the parking spaces are on sloping concrete decks (the ramp and the garage are one and the same), but if they build flat decks they can reuse that space 20 years from now when very few cars are being stored there.

The high-rise at Illinois and Columbus (with the Whole Foods) has a number of loft condos occupying what was intended to be garage space, if I am not mistaken.

^Ceiling height is sometimes an issue. Even if the garage has eight-foot ceilings, that looks cramped when retrofitted with ductwork and piping.

That's what im getting at. When i visit Chicago i bring my money with me and use it to support businesses from Hyde Park to Wicker Park and from Streeterville to Wrigleyville but seldom anywhere near Roosevelt.

Bringing an automobile into downtown is a terrible idea so I don't do it. I walk. I enjoy walking. Ill walk from the West Loop to Lincoln Park but I'd be more likely to take a bus to the Museum Campus.

That being said I'll get back on topic by saying the parking ratio for this particular building is quite painful.

/end of debate

Zing!

One thing I'll add here was that (and this wasn't a surprise to me, and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands who the developer is here, ie this is an urban residential developer that is hq'd in Miami of all places) it was definitely my impression from listening to the Crescent Heights exec speak that what they really desire to do is condos. (that's their main business model)
If their assessment was that the market was now supportive, this would be an all-condo building. If the market changes very favorably, this building could definitely switch to partial or all condos over the next couple years, undoubtedly. If not, it should certainly be viewed as a candidate for condo conversion at some point after completion. Something tells me that Crescent Heights might not be that comfortable with doing buildings that are partially rental, and partially condo, otherwise I don't see why they wouldn't test the new condo development waters here by maybe making 15%-25% of the units condo here - something to the tune that Related Midwest is doing with its Stern ShitBomb. Of course it's a bit more complicated to do both condos and apartments, as opposed to only one or the other, but with a building of this size, it's easily workable (uhh - Aqua). The exec mentioned that they see the future building at the corner of Michigan and Roosevelt as condo (of course, they would see everything at some point in the future as condo, as that's their real business model)......to me, I might actually prefer the opposite, with the rental building being the Michigan corner, and the condo on the Indiana corner....but oh well - again, they may very well both end-up being condo, at least at some point. Also, although it certainly seems that Crescent Heights right now has every intention of developing all phases themselves - who knows, maybe a scenario might arise at some point in which they accept an offer for the Michigan corner parcel from another developer, or go JV or something, and that phase might turn out different and more architecturally/programmatically ambitious from today's placeholder??......

Yeah November seems like the biggest planning commission meeting since the spire.(skyscraper wise) With this and I believe Wanda both going up for approval.

reason you dont see more mixed rental/condo buildings is because acquiring traditional financing becomes difficult when the rental amount gets to certain percentages, I know FHA for one has a cut off of 50%, not sure about the rules for conventional or jumbo loans but I would imagine that they are more stringent.

^ Are you sure that applies when the rental component is owned by a single institutional entity (which is of course what I'm talking about here, eg Aqua apartments, owned by JP Morgan Asset Management)? If it does, it probably should not. The intent certainly with the FHA reg %s almost certainly is to limit financing/make financing more expensive in condominium buildings where a certain % of (the individually-owned) condo units are rented-out/not owner-occupied.......

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

I just can't stop looking at this and thinking: ugh, can they tear down the three pieces of shit on either side while they're at it??? :yuck:

Because what's better than 2 Vinoly towers? Uh, 5 :cool:

We're only 5 years into the 10s, and they already look disgustingly dated. That heinous "brick" thing is one of the absolute worst things in existence.

I love One Museum Park.....

Uh oh...

:runaway:

OMP is absurdly convoluted and graceless. It got a pass 8 years ago because it was tall.

Yeah? Good for you. It's horrible.

OMP is like that awkward fat dork who ruined class photos. Its presence is a clumsy stain on the City's skyline. There are a handful of buildings that are much worse, but it's pretty damn bad.

OMP is pretty awesome. I like the way it builds up to the crown. A lot of you people seem a little feisty over an opinion O.o

I only like OMP when you're driving into the city on s lake shore, that's when's its proportions look ok.

OMP is an arbitrary, decorative, piece of junk...

ide kill for a high floor ne corner condo there though.

Oh, the views from it are amazing. And the inside is pretty damn nice too. It's a high quality building, no doubt... just ugly and shitty architecture.

You mean you don't like it's pretty little hayutt???