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)

chicubs111 Jun 24, 2017 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7844767)
Recall that the Marquee at Block 37 was able to fit 700 units for a 400 ft tower. It wouldn't be too difficult to image a 700 ft tower with 640 units and 626 hotel rooms.

^ Yea but Marquee takes up like a city block ...this site seems somewhat snug?..I would love to see something over 800 ft here...its definitely doable with those number of units ...hopefully some type of pinnacle rooftop would be nice break for a change.

MakeChicagoGreatAgai Jun 26, 2017 4:32 PM

The previous proposal was 60 floors with 574 apartments and 684 hotel rooms and now we're getting a proposal that is "as many as 640 residential units and 626 hotel rooms." I'm guessing 65 floors or less.

Kumdogmillionaire Jun 26, 2017 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakeChicagoGreatAgai (Post 7845998)
The previous proposal was 60 floors with 574 apartments and 684 hotel rooms and now we're getting a proposal that is "as many as 640 residential units and 626 hotel rooms." I'm guessing 65 floors or less.

The size of the floor plates is really what matters here. If they take up the whole site on these floor plates you are correct, but the leaked mock-up of the building sites implies it make take up less of the site than the previous proposal for site O

r18tdi Jun 26, 2017 9:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7846233)
The size of the floor plates is really what matters here. If they take up the whole site on these floor plates you are correct, but the leaked mock-up of the building sites implies it make take up less of the site than the previous proposal for site O

Agreed, but the economics of going very tall and skinny wouldn't make much sense here. It's not like it's going to have amazing views -- the site is pretty boxed-in.

left of center Jun 27, 2017 1:48 AM

They could justify going tall if they wanted more units to have a view of LSE park, since the other 3 directions are going to be hundreds of feet of sheer wall. This wouldn't matter for the hotel as much as it would for the apartments of course. Assuming the service corridor between the Lancaster and North Harbor Tower/Parkshore was preserved, there would be some lake views as well from that vantage. Such views could command higher leases, which could make building taller more cost effective. This is all speculative, of course.

SamInTheLoop Jun 27, 2017 1:52 PM

^ But they aren't......I think this tower will still definitely be less than 700', which is fine. Most important is the density. This is a dense - and appropriately so - project. Over 600 apartment units and over 600 hotel rooms? Yes, please.

I just hope this one is planned for this cycle still. I've been very curious what's taken so long for Magellan to get going on this one.......they easily could have started 1, 2, 3, or 4 years ago, and it would have been a smashing success.

Chi-Sky21 Jun 27, 2017 4:20 PM

With the limited views at O why are they putting the density here instead of the lots with WAY better views? Doesn't make much sense to me.

BuildThemTaller Jun 27, 2017 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 (Post 7847209)
With the limited views at O why are they putting the density here instead of the lots with WAY better views? Doesn't make much sense to me.

But it makes total sense. The lots with the best views will command the highest prices per square foot as hotels, rentals, and condos. This lot is closest to the rest of the city, the convention spaces, and has the worst views. It's going to be ideal for a large number of hotel room keys and small, affordable (ish) apartments.

SamInTheLoop Jun 27, 2017 5:05 PM

^ Location. Location. Location. O is the best-located parcel in LSE for very high density.

Also, I think you may be conflating density and height - at least to an extent....

Chi-Sky21 Jun 27, 2017 6:01 PM

It makes sense to keep the hotel there but i think they would be better off to increase each of the other buildings density and height, nothing huge. Also, make some of it condo. I would think you would find it easy to find people who want to own at those other lots. But whatever...as long as it looks nice i do not really care. I just feel those other lots are not being planned to their full potential.

gebs Jun 27, 2017 6:35 PM

At the risk of going too far off-topic, I get the feeling a lot of members of this site played a LOT of SimCity 2000 as kids. Or play its far more complex, graphically-enhanced version today.

LouisVanDerWright Jun 27, 2017 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gebs (Post 7847402)
At the risk of going too far off-topic, I get the feeling a lot of members of this site played a LOT of SimCity 2000 as kids. Or play its far more complex, graphically-enhanced version today.

I know I did, even Sim City Classic. I play the real life Sim City today doing little developments of my own. Everyone who played Sim City wants to build the biggest skyscraper on earth.

Kumdogmillionaire Jun 27, 2017 11:03 PM

Cities: Skylines is now all the rage. Much improved version of that game, and absolutely my guilty pleasure when I have time.

Anyway, back to the building at hand, I am finally understanding why the density would be slated for this site instead of the of ones along the lake. Still kind of bummed we didn't get a supertall and a nice open park in that remaining lot, but obviously that would have been much less economical.

ithakas Jul 10, 2017 11:32 PM

Updated rendering via Curbed: https://twitter.com/curbedchicago/st...54226818580482

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEaRXxuWAAAqKnU.jpg
Curbed Chicago

rlw777 Jul 10, 2017 11:51 PM

2 more from David Matthews of DNAInfo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEaRwRWWAAA7rna.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEaRkEkXcAA1sOY.jpg:large

KWILLSKYLINE Jul 11, 2017 12:03 AM

^^^ kind of reminds me of Lowes with the serback balcanies.

the urban politician Jul 11, 2017 12:20 AM

Doesn't seem much different from the original proposal

chicubs111 Jul 11, 2017 12:58 AM

^ So wait im confused...is this the twin tower that was mentioned?..I thought there were 4 buildings to be shown during this presentation...Feel like only seen 3??:shrug:

James_Mac Jul 11, 2017 1:50 AM

http://i63.tinypic.com/2pru5ut.jpg

Note that they've visually separated the two hotels and the apartments. Above the podium, the part with the distinct lines on the left is one hotel, the part with the distinct grid is another, and then the apartments are the bits with balconies above that. Also, a little hard to tell, but the apartment part sticks out over the hotel part on the west and east.

EDIT: See below for details.

http://i67.tinypic.com/2mhzzsx.jpg

James_Mac Jul 11, 2017 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 7861011)
^ So wait im confused...is this the twin tower that was mentioned?..I thought there were 4 buildings to be shown during this presentation...Feel like only seen 3??:shrug:

There are three on the corner lot and one on Block O. Two of the buildings on the corner lot look similar (and similarly unmemorable).


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:32 AM.

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