SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 875 FT & 765 FT | ? & ? FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219306)

left of center Sep 26, 2017 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 7933709)
Now, an observation tower is the only solution for Chicago.

Why would it be? The Spire site is excellently located, with river and lake views, next to the future DuSable park, not to mention a dedicated off ramp from southbound LSD. It would be stupid to not put condos/apartments on that site. Units located there would without a doubt command a price premium.

It probably wont be 2000 ft, but I don't see anything shorter than 700/800 feet getting built there. It's too prime a site.

TimeAgain Sep 27, 2017 3:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 7934271)
Why would it be? The Spire site is excellently located, with river and lake views, next to the future DuSable park, not to mention a dedicated off ramp from southbound LSD. It would be stupid to not put condos/apartments on that site. Units located there would without a doubt command a price premium.

It probably wont be 2000 ft, but I don't see anything shorter than 700/800 feet getting built there. It's too prime a site.

Anything less than a 1000 ft wouldn't even be worth building, unless it has a really unique design.

munchymunch Sep 28, 2017 8:14 PM

Anyone have an idea why excavators are moving dirt on DuSable park?

Steely Dan Sep 28, 2017 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 7936428)
Anyone have an idea why excavators are moving dirt on DuSable park?

perhaps soil remediation?

here's curbed article from back in july:

Quote:

The long-delayed plan to rehab Chicago’s DuSable Park creeps forward
The City of Chicago has authorized a further cleanup of the lakefront peninsula’s contaminated soil
BY JAY KOZIARZ JUL 20, 2017, 12:55PM CDT

Though first dedicated as public open space in the 1980s, Chicago’s unfinished DuSable Park is finally ready to start taking shape. The Chicago Tribune reports that the Chicago Park District board awarded a $1.4 million contract to Industrial & Environmental Services to remove contaminated soil from the site. Not to be confused with the South Side’s similarly named DuSable Museum of African American History, the downtown park is situated on an undeveloped 3.3-acre peninsula of reclaimed lakefront land east of North Lake Shore Drive between the mouth of the Chicago River and the Ogden Slip.

While the site had its surface soil combed free of radioactive materials leftover from Chicago’s old Lindsay Light and Chemical Company facility years ago, a more recent EPA report concluded that additional subsurface work is still required. Expected to begin next month, the next phase of decontamination will be financed by funds awarded in a 2014 legal settlement with Lindsay Light.

The latest clean-up effort is only the beginning of DuSable Park’s long-discussed transformation from overgrown vacant land to a finished public amenity. The plan is tied directly to the redevelopment of the neighboring parcel at 400 N. Lake Shore Drive—the site of the abandoned 2,000-foot Chicago Spire megatall skyscraper.
source: https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/7/20...-clean-up-plan

Kumdogmillionaire Sep 29, 2017 1:13 AM

Yep, gotta get that thorium out of there before we can do anything else with the park

Skyguy_7 Nov 18, 2017 2:10 AM

Cross post from Kolchak
https://s7.postimg.org/627h4xld7/VISTA_3.jpg

Hate to bump this thread, but does anyone know why there’s an excavator on site? You’d think Disable Park activity would be confined to Dusable Park...

harryc Nov 18, 2017 3:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7989921)
Cross post from Kolchak
https://s7.postimg.org/627h4xld7/VISTA_3.jpg

Hate to bump this thread, but does anyone know why there’s an excavator on site? You’d think Disable Park activity would be confined to Dusable Park...

It looks like it is for the work in the park on the other side of LSD - bike path ? They were driving in 85' friction piles today.

IrishIllini Nov 18, 2017 3:41 AM

I don't think anything happens at the Spire site for a while, unfortunately. Between the proposed development just south of here, Vista, Wolf Point East, and One Chicago Sq., I can't see this project gaining the momentum it needs to justify another 1000 ft. tower, let alone a 2,000 ft. one. Save it for another day and make sure it's something iconic.

munchymunch Nov 18, 2017 4:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7989921)
Cross post from Kolchak
https://s7.postimg.org/627h4xld7/VISTA_3.jpg

Hate to bump this thread, but does anyone know why there’s an excavator on site? You’d think Disable Park activity would be confined to Dusable Park...

It was there a month ago.

maru2501 Nov 18, 2017 3:52 PM

the supertall at the east end of LSE probably gets built first and that's the same market, almost literally

Kumdogmillionaire Nov 18, 2017 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501 (Post 7990220)
the supertall at the east end of LSE probably gets built first and that's the same market, almost literally

Won't be a supertall last time I checked its height was 875 feet.

NYguy Nov 20, 2017 8:18 PM

http://www.surfacemag.com/articles/s...op-their-egos/

Stephen M. Ross to Architects: Drop Your Egos

November 14, 2017

Quote:

The company is continuing apace with a slew of projects elsewhere, too. In California, it recently opened affordable housing complexes in San Francisco, Palo Alto, and San Bernardino County. And in Chicago, another Robert A.M. Stern tower—the architect’s first in the city—is rising; plans for the redevelopment of the long-dormant Chicago Spire will be announced this fall; and a deal has been finalized to build a mixed-use project on 62 acres of vacant land south of the Chicago Loop.

Quote:

Would you consider doing a Hudson Yards–like project in Detroit?

Oh yeah, we’re doing other large projects. Related continues to grow. We’re doing two major mixed-used projects in California—one in Los Angeles, one in Santa Clara—and several big developments in Chicago. The large-scale mixed-use projects are what I’m most interested in at this point. I’ve built enough individual buildings. What really gets my juices flowing is the thought of doing the most impactful projects in every major city in the country.

Randomguy34 Nov 20, 2017 8:24 PM

Quote:

plans for the redevelopment of the long-dormant Chicago Spire will be announced this fall
Well, "the fall" is only around for another month. It's been 3 years since they got control of the site, so the wait better be worth it.

Ricochet48 Nov 20, 2017 9:29 PM

Heard from a source in the industry that new plans are in the works. Taking it with speculation, but all the other news I have heard has been spot on (especially regarding One Chicago Square I also got the heads up on).

On a personal note, not looking for Hudson Yards here, but it would be lovely to have a supertall on that site. Not quite 2,000ft tall, but about Trump's height would look great imo.

chicubs111 Nov 20, 2017 10:24 PM

doesnt need to be 2000ft but would want something over 1500 ft..perhaps the cities tallest atlest...i know going for 2000ft is a bit much

Sky88 Nov 20, 2017 10:56 PM

A skyscraper can be tall 2.000 ft thanks to a spire. There is not need to reach that height with the roof.;)

Domer2019 Nov 20, 2017 11:01 PM

Oh my gosh you guys, get over yourselves. Let's just wait and see, because any mental foreplay you do amounts to nothing. I'll consider things a success if it breaks 1200, because I'm not sure Related has set their sights on anything more than what figures give them the best business while still being worthy of the site and Rahm's judgement, subjective as that is.

HomrQT Nov 21, 2017 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7992529)
Oh my gosh you guys, get over yourselves. Let's just wait and see, because any mental foreplay you do amounts to nothing. I'll consider things a success if it breaks 1200, because I'm not sure Related has set their sights on anything more than what figures give them the best business while still being worthy of the site and Rahm's judgement, subjective as that is.

I'm holding Related to when they said they would develop something "Architecturally significant" for this site. Going to or passing 2000ft would be architecturally significant for the Western Hemisphere.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2014/11/4...ficant-chicago

Domer2019 Nov 21, 2017 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7992613)
I'm holding Related to when they said they would develop something "Architecturally significant" for this site. Going to or passing 2000ft would be architecturally significant for the Western Hemisphere.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2014/11/4...ficant-chicago

I get what you're saying, but it's a shallow promise on many levels.

Architectural significance =/= height significance. Design and engineering are 90% of that discussion, especially at a time when 2000 ft is not a watershed moment. Not saying a 2000'er in NA wouldn't be significant, just that there are a lot of ways to take that statement. I'm sure many Chicagoans have or will come to find 150 N Riverside significant simply because of its cantilevers.

Really, when it comes down to it, Related is not going to tack on 500-1000 extra feet if it just results in a net loss in the 10s/100s of millions on their margins. If they want 1400 feet and a unique design like that of the recent stilt concept for the site or something like Vista (if Vista wasn't already a thing) rather than 2000, you can't really say that they're hypocrites. Maybe they just have a different mindset on the architectural significance and fit for the site. Rest assured, I think 1400 would obviously still "fit" the site's prominence. Perhaps we should be more irked that Magellan didn't try to allocate more FAR/density to Site I on the other side of the river.

HomrQT Nov 21, 2017 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7992629)
I get what you're saying, but it's a shallow promise on many levels.

Architectural significance =/= height significance. Design and engineering are 90% of that discussion, especially at a time when 2000 ft is not a watershed moment. Not saying a 2000'er in NA wouldn't be significant, just that there are a lot of ways to take that statement. I'm sure many Chicagoans have or will come to find 150 N Riverside significant simply because of its cantilevers.

Really, when it comes down to it, Related is not going to tack on 500-1000 extra feet if it just results in a net loss in the 10s/100s of millions on their margins. If they want 1400 feet and a unique design like that of the recent stilt concept for the site or something like Vista (if Vista wasn't already a thing) rather than 2000, you can't really say that they're hypocrites. Maybe they just have a different mindset on the architectural significance and fit for the site. Rest assured, I think 1400 would obviously still "fit" the site's prominence. Perhaps we should be more irked that Magellan didn't try to allocate more FAR/density to Site I on the other side of the river.

Just curious, are you confident a 2000ft tower would not do well financially at that location, or is it more of a "what if" on your part?


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.