CHICAGO | 195 N Columbus (LSE) | 502 FT | 47 FLOORS
 

view from NE:
https://files.constantcontact.com/5a...7b168bb761.png

view from NW:
https://files.constantcontact.com/5a...f1de7c7c05.png






older renderings:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zdb1...Parcel_O_4.jpg

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/BlzY...Parcel_O_3.jpg


____________________________________________

OLD PROPOSAL:

Skyscraper Inbound for Lakeshore East



http://imageshack.com/a/img745/2774/trtjiZ.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img631/4798/UpuGmx.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img538/5254/wAYFSY.jpg


http://chicago.curbed.com/uploads/LSE.png
Lakeshore East master plan map courtesy of Magellan Development

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/w...9-1024x682.jpg

===============================
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...ge-skyscraper/
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...shore-east.php

I still can't wrap my head on how it's only going to be 60 floors if there will be 574 apartments and 684 hotel rooms.

Make the Tower 950-975 feet and I'm in. That is one of a few prime location's left.

Prime? Few?

You don't even have to leave the Lakeshore East complex to find three vacant sites which are many magnitudes more desirable.

Suppose I'll relay the information I posted on the compilation thread here..

574 apartments, 684 hotel rooms. 10,000 sq ft of retail, 4,000 of it facing LSE park. 197 parking spaces below Upper Columbus drive. Parking will be an extension of the Aqua parking structure and accessed through the Aqua entries and ramps. Podium will have "food and beverage outlets" in addition to the usual lobbies, ballroom, amenities, etc. LEED Silver. bKL is the architect.

Deadline for sub contractor bids is 10/10/14, construction start date set for May 2015.

Hello, exciting news.
If this building is only 60 stories, then I don't see it being taller than BCBS, especially if the counting starts from ground level instead of from Upper Columbus. Thus, Aqua shouldn't lose any views.

Will be exciting to see the renders come in.

bkl doesn't excite me, hopefully I'm surprised....

Something about these numbers seems funny. Aqua has 747 residential units and 225 hotel rooms, yet is 80 floors. This building will have 1,250 total units (250 more than Aqua) and only be 60 floors. Aqua is about the same width as this site, but isn't as long as this site. What this indicates to me is that this building is going to be an absolute slab. How else are they going to cram 20+ units on each floor?

I'm not complaining about it, but I think it's pretty clear that this building needs to be pretty much lot line to lot line in order to accommodate that many units in only 60 floors. Absolutely loving the density though, between that and filing the last hole along Columbus, this is sure to inject some big time streetlife into the area. In terms of unit count, this will be the biggest building in LSE with 25% more units than Aqua. Will probably have a similar SF to Aqua since hotel rooms are smaller than apartments and apartments are usually smaller than condos.

Agreed. This is going to be another well designed but boring glass box. Like WP west, like the Coast, and 200 N Michigan ave.

^^ Yep - it is going to be a wide tower for sure (or maybe I mean long, as you're using it) the eastern facade afaik may go just about to the park drive (in other words, even further east than the light blue footprint in the map goes). Western facade of the tower itself probably set back from Columbus (but even so, look how long the overall site is, if you're going all the way to the park drive - it's very long). So yes, massive slab - I love it.

Another way to think about how large (not necessarily tall - just in terms of sq ft) this tower could be - it has more residential units than Coast - maybe 50 more??, and oh, yeah, then throw in almost 700 hotel rooms split among two flags (and all the associated common area/amenity space those two flags may need! This is the type of density we need much more of.

Totally agree as well with your previous assessment of Magellan needing to go back to the city for additional density in LSE at some point in the future. I've realized this since at least Aqua, if not before. Combination of no office towers, plus building somewhat taller/denser than originally envisioned does mean that they will run out of entitlements before they put up some of the last towers along LSD.....strategically better for them to wait until they need them to build on those parcels (what is the city going to do, insist that these remain prairie?, of course a deal will be worked out....


^ To me, boring seems harsh for bKL's work, I suppose if your mindset is that you are looking for avant garde or something as a baseline for new towers, than perhaps I understand your assessment, but that's not my starting point in taking in new tower designs.......

Workers at BCBS offices will have great views into units of whoever lives at site O. 8)

I think bKL's work is pretty nice actually, I certainly wouldn't call GEM's boring. Sure Coast is very minimalist, but the detailing is fantastic. Wolf Point isn't even built yet, but the massive colonnade they are building along the river right now is looking like it will be anything but boring.


Sam, I like your assessment, but how about this comparison: The apartment tower going up at Block 37 has 690 units in 34 story tower which is also almost exactly the same footprint of this site and also will have an average of slightly over 20 units per floor. This tower will basically equal B37 X 2.

I'm willing to bet this tower will break the Low-end-burg model of ultra low ceiling heights to some degree given the location. I can't see them keeping heights low with so few corner units. They need to maximize light to the interior if it's going to be a massive slab or they are going to have a bunch of pretty undesirable units on their hands. I imagine this will be around 700' from the Park level and like 650' from upper Columbus resulting in interior ceiling heights around 9' instead of the 8.5' heights in Aqua and earlier towers.

Or maybe they've found a way to create more angles in the design and thereby open up the units to more light. Either way looking forward to seeing the design solution they've come up with for this unique site. We could end up with something with the massing of a slightly shorter BCBS that has been sliced in half the long ways. Pretty awesome.

8'6" ceiling heights. The design is basically a slab that fills the lot, but set back 120' from Columbus.

The facade has kind of a two-face design that makes it look like Seagram Building and Citicorp Center are spooning... long continuous balconies like Coast are prominent on certain portions.

Site today: (click for big)

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

You can see the work they just started doing to the stairs on the SE corner of Aqua's property. Pretty sure they're adding an elevator.

You had me at Seagram.


But seriously, what is Magellan's deal with going with substandard/sub-market ceiling heights still? This isn't 1998 anymore. (news flash - higher ceilings actually make a large difference in the perception of how spacious an apartment is - and the market - everyone except for Magellan - has picked up on that in a big way over the last decade-plus). Sure, you cheap out and save on construction costs upfront, but Magellan being a longer-term player/operator as well surely must realize the inherant risk here with going lower than market (and making apartments 'feel' more cramped, thus missing out on a definite degree of NOI upside).........or, do they just feel that their location is so good here - which objectively it is - it is quite fantastic - that they can 'afford' this substandard/market aspect??

they will just charge high rents anyway, setting the standard that even crappy apartments are super expensive.

Boxes are ubiquitous in Chicago because they make sense. This isn't New York where developers can afford novel studies in form for the sole purpose of differentiating their product; and (thank God) this also (mostly) isn't Miami or Toronto where superficial flourishes are offered up as the poor man's Architecture with a capital A instead. If you're going to deviate from the box in this city, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. Hell, part of the genius of Aqua is that it embraces the box as a starting point. (And I'd argue that the majority of people who dislike Aqua fail to appreciate this fact.)

IMO, looking at what's going up in other cities, I firmly believe that bKL are among the best designers of tall buildings in the country. They understand materials; the understand details; they understand subtlety and restraint. They're one of only a few firms to successfully translate the Miesian aesthetic into the 21st Century. And considering how many pretenders to his throne have abased the glass box since its advent, I think they're playing a very valuable role in doing so.

They've also been very prolific in town lately. For a young company they've been producing a huge amount of prominent-ish buildings in a short amount of time. I'm hopeful to see what they've got for this one.

Doesn't Aqua have soul-crushingly low ceilings as well?

feeling this post and completely agree

yup, and cookie cutter layouts, cookie cutter appliances, cookie cutter finishes.

still obscene rent.

:rolleyes: So we are embracing the box now?

chicago has always embraced the box, and i would guess that it always will.

boxes are economical and efficient, that's why so many of them get built.

Well done.

To be clear my comment was not about boxy buildings in Chicago. Nor was I deriding the quality of BKL designs as is pretty clear from my assertion that the building will be well designed. Their designs are very solid and are also mostly forgettable. I'm not advocating for Miami, Dubai, or China here. But it would be nice to see bkl taking some more design risks.

I don't have contempt for boxes but most are not interesting to me.

This is my view of this as well.

More exciting site pictures.

http://i.imgur.com/LUiUm9yl.jpg

Free building materials:
http://i.imgur.com/kxTfTWsl.jpg

Free pillows and shoes:
http://i.imgur.com/FOS4Ffjl.jpg

Chicago

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_Building.JPG
wikipedia

Has

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...00905-003a.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

ALWAYS

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...-5-500x400.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

Embraced

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...Center-002.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

The

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...MPlaza-003.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.info

BOX

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/w...-2012-001a.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.org

Love it, wish you had included AON, which was one of my favorite buildings growing up.

I thought for sure I'd see the Aon Center scrolling down. =p

But the point was made very well. We are a city that has embraced boxy buildings and I'm cool with that. I can respect efficiency... not to be confused with being cheap.

Funny you mention Miami... Most of bKL's work (and really most of LSE) reminds me of Arquitectonica in their more restrained moments. From what I've seen of the Site O design, it also has a certain Miami vibe - mainly in the design of balconies and the prominent white color.

Are we going to have to have you draw it on a napkin? :haha:

No, LVDW needs to draw it on a napkin from my description!

Ugh, Ok fine, what's it look like...

:P

"A big, floating ball that lit up with every color of the rainbow, plus some new ones that were so beautiful I fell to my knees and cried."

In that case I'll just post my headshot... Lol.

If you're serious...:shrug:

...

^ It's just not where the modern market is. 8'6" isn't bad if your frame of reference is in the 7's, but this is 2014, and renters understand and value higher ceilings today. Myself, having lived in a building with approx. 9'6" ceilings for several years, 8'6" would be simply off the table - no mattre the size of the unit, it would fee more cramped and smaller than it is, and I would probably at least for a while, feel uncomfortable - but I would never consider moving into it in the first place. Now that's just me, but I have a feeling there's a good part of the market coming from the same place (not my unit, put state of mind!)....

When you are 6'2" then yes....

my concern is they will try to maximize the economical potential is if was a great building, even though it will be an ok building, helping set the new normal that mediocre apartments can command top tier rent.

Don't expect the same low ceiling heights in this building or in future buildings in LSE. Apparently they got a lot of flack for the low ceilings in Aqua.

More than likely they'll be about 9'-6".

i cleared all of the distracting aqua nonsense from this thread.

let's get back to discussion of 201 N columbus

Althought it wouldn't surprise me if Magellan has been hearing negative comments in the market regarding their standard ceiling heights, Ardecila certainly seems to be very much in the know regarding this proposal and its design, and according to his post (#13 in this thread), ceiling heights for this tower will be 8'6"..........disappointly............

Their LSE projects have been quite financially successful, and as I've been pointing out, "O" is a phenominally well located site, so Magellan may just not care........perhaps they'll just march on - building lower than market, making residents and guests feel more cramped than than they necessarily need to - all the way to the bank.....

I mostly don't care I suppose - I won't ever live there for certain if those are in fact the ceiling heights, and I won't be staying there, as I live in Chicago.....only drawback is their towers are of course shorter than if they built to current broad market standards.....

...

^It might have decent views of the lake to the E/NE.

Without the prestige of a Gang design and stellar views, I'm guessing the main draw here will be location. I don't know how ceiling height factors into that algebra... but: remember the Howard Johnson Inn tower in river north? That's designed by bKL and developed by Magellan, and they recently went through a revision that dropped 3 stories in order to heighten the ceilings. Maybe Magellan got the message.

low ceilings havent capped rental rates. they just rent them as if they had 15 foot ceilings and proper (non-ge) appliances.

The appeal here is about location. Let's be honest, this is a stellar location. I would live here in a heartbeat if I had the chance

The HoJo is probably getting a ceiling height increase because they will eventually (or before construction completes) go condo with it. Obviously they've built low ceilings in condos before, but I think that's the clear reasoning with that tower.

It sounds as if you're equating view with location. There is obviously much, much more to a location than the views it offers. TUP is right - this is a stellar location all-around.