That _IS_ the life of a sysadmin.

Most of the concerns that were listed had little to do with tower design, and the changes wouldn't need to affect those much, if at all, so I'd expect very similar designs

Water taxi could be a serious option to commute to Lincoln Yards, The 78 or the Old Post Office.

Unless it becomes like the nyc ferries that travel 29 mph and cost $2.75, the water taxi will not be that serious of a commuting option

Water taxi is free for many tenants - at 321 N Clark we get a free pass.

Does anybody know if these final developments to fill out Lake Shore East include improved pedestrian access to the lakeshore/Navy Pier?

I know I've tried to bring visiting friends through the area before (either stopping at Mariano's for a snack or wine, or showing them the nice park in the center of the development), but I'm always baffled at the poor connectivity to the lakefront path.

You'd think that this would be a priority for the city to push, similar to the Riverwalk connection as a part of the Vista Tower project

Welcome to the forum!

In short, the Site I and other proposals were rejected by the Alderman in 2017 over his objections to lakefront access. You can go to page 1 of this thread to judge for yourself. The new proposal should have a heavy emphasis on helping people get from LSE to the lake.


As for Navy Pier, the bike bridge connecting Olive Park and the south branch of the Chicago River should help somewhat.

Well thank you for you post and welcome the forum


You are welcome and a needed new foumer.



It has been like ten year before we got some new former from Chicagoland .









Just keep it us, that's all I ask.


I wish you the best of luck

A new article to pass the time.

Developers reintroduce three-tower proposal for Lakeshore East
By Jay Koziarz Aug 27, 2018, 12:50pm CDT
https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/8/27...e-east-meeting

Interesting. There appears to be no mention of a redesign of any of the towers, which is good since I like the current design for Site I. Three hundred more residential units, but coming at the expense of 300 hotel rooms. Probably preferable this way, as the hotel would be somewhat out of the way.

Hopefully Reilly likes the changes done to the parks, walkways and car/pedestrian circulation.

I thought it was 4 towers? That curbed article is confusing me with the title.

Three towers are on one parcel on the northeast corner of LSE and a parcel to the southwest will also host a tower.

And to make it more confusing, those 3 towers on the NE corner are on 4 parcels (I, J, K, L), where the original plan was to have 4 towers.

6pm meeting tonight! Is anyone there?

Meeting
 

I am at the meeting. No changes to tower design. Tower I hotel portion has been removed (but that was never a part of the original plan, simply the developer reserved the possibility of adding one based on market conditions). Park towards lakefront has been widened with more free space and less area dedicated to ramps. The alderman’s tone makes it sound that this will likely be approved.

I was going to go, but work held me back late. Can't wait to see some pictures!

According to Crain’s Business “Magellan and Lendlease had proposed a 300-room hotel and 300 condos in the 80-story building but have scrapped the hotel and now plan 600 condos. They plan to develop the other towers—a 50-story, 500-unit condo building and a 40-story, 600-unit apartment high-rise—in the first phase of the project, with the taller tower coming later.”
So Site I across from the spire site will be 80 stories with 600 condos and be built after the shorter apartment and condo towers.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/comme...lakeshore-east

Though I wasn't expecting it to bad on the no design change. While I think the site I building is above average I can't say it the design impresses me as a potential landmark building. It isn't the height that bothers me as much as the seemingly awkward placement of the balconies. The reverse taper on the east side of the building also comes off a bit awkward to me, maybe the execution will be more satisfying when seeing it three-dimensionally.

So no new images or notes from the meeting?

https://crain-platform-ccb-prod.s3.a...ast%20View.jpg

https://crain-platform-ccb-prod.s3.a...%20Station.jpg

https://crain-platform-ccb-prod.s3.a...3/lake-two.jpg

https://crain-platform-ccb-prod.s3.a...20Corridor.jpg
From Crain's

With all the height reductions in this area, is there any chance we'll see site O go back to the aqua twin tower design?

Someone on twitter took a few pictures of the presentation (saw the RT by Building Up Chicago)

That's some pretty dense living, Looks like places in China.

I hope waking distant retail and restaurants got a place down by there (sp). Pretty far from the jobs and day/nightlife hemmed in by the river and LSD.

Wouldn't be my choice to live there. People from out of town not familiar with Chicago some probably would consider its isolation a positive I imagine.

To me that's a de facto city gated community there. Not a suburban gated community but a city one. Certainly not as horrible as the flat Dearborn Park.

^ Site I looks quite a bit bigger than 875' considering that the last setback of Vista is 857'

I was just thinking the same thing

I continue to not understand comments like this. Site I is a 0.5mile, 10-15 minute walk to Michigan Avenue. There are tons of highly desireable neighborhoods in this city that are that far from a commercial street, where the only restaurants are a fast food chain. People happily choose to live there without retail right across the street. And the jobs aren't on those quiet tree lined streets either.

They are getting killer lake views, riverwalk, lakeshore access right at their front door. Every location has tradeoffs.
Some people want to be able to stumble home from a club at 4am, some people want to be able to head out for a 6am lakeshore bike ride.

lets not forget this tower is sitting on a 5 story base so i dont know if that was included in the original plans for this tower...hence it looking more around 930 ft or so

Naw guys it would suck so much to live there where my wife can just walk to work in the pedway when it's rainy instead of making me drive her to the L stop. I would be bummed to live right on the corner of the house and the lake with sprawing river, lake, city, and park views in all directions. I don't know how I could cope with that, please punish me with this awful existence now!

All that walking would be very difficult. Can't imagine how anybody could do it :D

The new rendering looks great. Hope it is 930 feet or more like we suspect.

There are some rather interesting and unfortunate design choices here.

I’m thinking, at first glance, of the shared party wall to the west that is being left exposed. It’s a shame that this is basically designed as a “tower in a park” in such a prominent location, instead of forming a continuous street wall like the best part of Lake Shore Drive (which is East Lake Shore Drive, for avoidance of doubt). Was that forced on the developers by “neighborhood concerns”, or was that some of their own volition?

Then there’s the swimming pool at the base of the next building south, which not only forces the building to an odd angle, and means that sunbathers and swimmers will enjoy the pleasant drone of LSD right next to them, but also puts the pool in the building’s shadow any time after lunch. Great thinking. Yes I know the idea is to have a view over the water, but that’s why you put the swimming pool on the roof.

And lastly, what’s with the gap between that building and the next one to the south (195 Harbor Drive), which leaves a bunch of LSD exposed to the park, and the park in a sort of hole with another blank wall to the south? Why not just bring all of it up to “grade” at the same level as the older buildings in the southeast corner of the neighborhood?

I mean, I guess if you want to live in a gated community downtown it’s fine, but I wish it presented a better face toward the lake and river. The tower itself is fine, but the lack of streetwall and the interaction at ground level is crap.

Also I know it's a prime location but it's also a lot of condos, what are the odds it gets pushed to the next cycle?

I would say 100%.

Source: https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/8/30...opment-meeting

They won't even begin Site I until Sites K/L and J are completed. Those towers will take at the minimum 2 to 3 years from today (still got to get approval, do site prep, etc) until completion.

I 100% agree that LSE is not a gated community, however this proposal makes it feel a bit like one. The very last rendering posted by rgarri perfectly illustrates my point. They are adding a security station, multiple security cameras, and fencing around the whole ramp section. This seems to be wanting to keep people out, not encouraging them to walk through. I bet this area will be dead of pedestrians most days.

Well, there are a few massive homeless encampments around lower wacker and in the Illinois Center's covered street areas. I'd understand their pensiveness at remaining too open.

The access drive to 195 Harbor is apparently untouchable, Magellan is doing its best to build park space around and over it.

Basically this site is the eastern gateway to LSE and the only direct access to the Lakefront Trail, so the site needs to provide clear and efficient paths to both the upper and lower levels of LSE. On the lower level, they are planning a cycle track that will connect through an existing tunnel to LSE Park. But they need the sloped green space to lead people between the upper and lower levels also.

Right now that end of Harbor Drive is inundated with confused tourists trying to get from Millennium/Maggie Daley Park to the lakefront and Navy Pier. Seriously, just stand there for ten minutes and several people will ask you for directions. The current path to the lakefront, descending down into LSE Park on Field Blvd or a staircase and then going through what appears to be a dark loading dock access under The Lancaster, is far from obvious, and most tourists prefer to stick to the upper level since that's where Maggie Daley Park dumps them. The other route - winding east from Maggie Daley Park down to Lower Randolph - is also not obvious, requiring several switchbacks in the park and leading across busy onramps to LSD. (It's better than it used to be, though, now that the park has been reworked.)

I don't necessarily think the tower-in-a-park model is a bad thing for this site. Looks like there is a tall retaining wall on the driveway that will clearly separate the public terraced park from the more private outdoor space around the towers. The open site plan will ensure that plenty of light and air reaches Harbor Drive from the lakefront.

On that note, when I saw this ramp crossing some months ago, there were no pedestrian cross signals either. Mass confusion and not exactly safe. More attention is needed for the entire pedestrian experience between the lakefront and the parks or river.

My understanding is that bKL wanted a design that continued the street wall with a bustle of some sort, but the developer (which includes Lend Lease in addition to any involvement from the Lowenberg/Magellan side of the business) was under the misguided belief that doing so would detract from the 'icon' status of the tower...

And, yes, this is coming much later... so maybe there's a good chance we might still see the continuation of the 'wall'... (Build that Wall!)

A 10 ride pass on the Water Taxi costs $25. Less than CTA fares.

Literally the first thing I thought when I saw the rendering... I don' t think that will be a pleasant space to relax.

I have mixed feelings about this project. On one hand, it will be nice to complete Lakeshore East for once and all. On the other hand, everything about this project seems awkward to me. I'd rather have one large building than three buildings and more green space and a better connection to the lakefront.

Better than 4 buildings which was the original plan.

Looks like the height has been increased to 950' for Building I. . .

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/168139594.jpg

. . .

Awesome! :cheers:

:awesome:

. . . so not to confuse anyone, this appears to be simply a zoning change notification and not a firm height declaration. . . be that as it may it seems to me to be the most recent notable height figure so I've changed that in the title of the thread. . . I doubt it will be exactly 950' as-built (and who knows where that's measured from), but until we see elevation drawings from the architect we'll leave it as such. . .

. . .

pssssst. You there. Yes, you. Hinesy Boy. You know what to do now, don't you?

Hines: Wolf Point south will now be 951 feet tall. :youmad:

. . . also I haven't really been following the details of the two smaller buildings, but someone else can comment if that's changed in any significant way. . . not sure I remember building J breaking 500" but, as I said, I haven't followed those details. . .

. . .

like

. . .