Article in the Architect's Newspaper.
http://www.archpaper.com/news/articl...8#.VrZwM3arRII

3/2: soil testing rig on-site
 

I heard there was a soil testing rig on-site today 3/2 (or yesterday). Still on track for a June/July start?

Was just about to post, I also saw the soil testing rig today.

Was this project approved already?

Back in Nov

Yes! This is my fav proposal besides wanda.

Call me crazy but I really think all of the current proposals will end up being built. The time is right this cycle. Chicago skyline going to change drastically with this big boys going up

most importantly, the skyline will stretch south. it would be amazing to see the area from Van Buren to Roosevelt, the river to the park with plenty of 600 ft + towers to connect the loop skyline to the central station skyline. that is definitely a possibility with the Riverline development, the Jahn tower, and the Essex tower in the works :cheers:

Exactly going to be fun to watch the skyline connect more uniformly to the south loop. I think there was another 45+ story tower proposed on Michigan Ave by John Murray we have not heard much about either. Heck riverline alone will be like a city within a city and have a big impact and trigger more development.

Where's that, exactly?

EDIT: Nevermind, that's 1326 S. Michigan. Exciting times ahead!

Yes that's it here is a link looks to be 48 stories so should be pretty tall. We haven't heard much about it lately but I think it gets done eventually. I like the design as well.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...partment-tower

Yes that's it here is a link looks to be 48 stories so should be pretty tall. We haven't heard much about it lately but I think it gets done eventually. I like the design as well.http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...partment-tower

^ ^^ ^^^ et al - you guys revisited that one with impeccable timing: It's actually slated to be on the agenda of this month's Plan Commission meeting (17th)........

Addendum: height of 488' on it, btw.....

03/08/16

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

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

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

^ Sweet sight.....



In terms of units, what is the count on this one again? Will this have more units than 235 W Van Buren? If so, won't this one have more units than any residential tower built in Chicago in decades?.....

792 units when announced, not sure if it's changed since.

It's part of a PD that has somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 allowed units remaining to be split between 3 building sites. If the number of units in this building changes, the other 2 will be adjusted accordingly.

Remember, phase 3 of this won't be a single structure, but townhouses around another redundant park where the old sales center used to be.

The park is not being built for public benefit, it is being built to maximize the sales price of the townhouses that surround it. Exactly one block south, you've got Webster Park and those townhouses that line it are pure money. 33% higher per sq foot sales price than those across the street from the park.

Webster Park may not have been built for the public benefit, I can't remember, but it certainly is a public park.

http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/p...-webster-park/

If phase 3 is the same, I still see it as redundant, especially if somewhere in the distant future the tracks to the east are decked over for additional green space.

Oh, for sure the park will be public. But the developers are building it to increase the prices for the homes they will be selling. That's all I was trying to write.

Ah, to be reminded of crescent heights' dumb plan to switch the 1300 Indiana block parcel to townhomes......I would much rather shave some density off their grant park-fronting towers to at least keep the 1300 block in the 25-30 story range.....to have a ~600-900 wall of towers directly backed in part by townhomes will definitely yield a flimsy/superficial/goofy feel in the area.....not well thought out from an urban design perspective....

Exactly. Having despoiled Grant Park by putting all their units in towers with jetliner views, they have to piss away the final parcel on a useless little dog-poop park and some townhouses. It's why we say that Chicago has a Department of Planning and Development, where the Planning is silent.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but how dumb is it to build a park right next to an amazing park. It makes no sense. Or the idea of townhouses, eventually this will be a dense area, 50 years down the road as the skyline moves in a southward direction. Also why not just sit on that last parcel of land and just wait it out till the market is ripe and build an even taller tower to still get the views and the units needed. Maybe there's more to it that I don't understand, but I see it that way.

Developers aren't big on delayed gratification.

20 years from now there might not be so many Chinese investors with excess money they need to park in the US.

Those townhouses are probably an epic investment right now.

I was thinking the same thing

I have a different perspective. Crescent Heights was smart, from an investors' perspective, to allocate more units to the parcels along Roosevelt which have substantially better views than the lot on the 1300 block of Indiana.

The 1300 lot is blocked to the north by The Grant (~54 floors) and OMP (~62 floors); blocked to the east by Museum Park Tower 4 (~35-40 floors); blocked to the west by Sky55 (~40 floors) and the red brick mid-rise (~15 floors); blocked to the southeast by MP Tower 1 (~20 floors) and Museum Pointe (~26 floors) and to a lesser extent MP T2 (~20 floors); blocked to the southwest by the two loft buildings (~15-20 floors). The only view corridor would be straight south down Indiana. It's easier to sell/lease a unit with a view vs. one without a view (assuming comparable units). There might be a small view corridor E between OMP and T4.

How many units did they say were going on the 1300 lot and include a park? 100? It's not possible to put 100 townhouses there and a park. I'm not specifically correct but directionally I think MP Tower 2 has 170 units and it's ~20 floors on a similarly sized lot. How many townhomes surround MPT1 on a larger lot? 40? My guess is that CH will build some sort of structure with townhouses and a mid-rise building. (The mid-rise for this lot from 'The Chicago' design would be cool on this lot. If I recall correctly, can't find a picture)

I'm not suggesting I like only townhouses on that lot - because I don't. I'm suggesting it's less risky from CH's perspective to allocate more units along Roosevelt.

I think it was a mistake they didn't include a hotel for either one of their buildings along Roosevelt. Having an outdoor/rooftop (halfway up the building...) bar/restaurant would have been a destination. Look at Cindy's, the new rooftop at LondonHouse, 16 @ Trump, J Parker, the Wit, etc. etc. The view is incredible from that perspective looking north at the entire city.

Does anyone know what the zoning is for the lot where Crescent Heights' existing apartment building is at 1212 S Michigan and what type of building could be built there (obviously extremely long term)?

Anyone hear any rumors for the lot to the south of the old Firehouse restaurant at 14th and Michigan? There used to be a 'For Sale' sign on the lot but it's been removed. Think that's a relatively large lot.

It's downtown Chicago. Zoning and planning have nothing to do with it. They could presumably go to 2000 feet, with an FAR somewhere in the 20s.

True, but we do have an elected body of 50 planners, remember.....

There's a rendering that was floating around recently for a residential high-rise I think in the mid-high teens in terms of no. of floors, for east side of Michigan, in this vicinity....not certain if that is the exact parcel you're referring to, but it very well may be.....someone else here will know......

Very good point on Crescent Heights' potential motivation for doing so.....and, to bring in Mr Downtown's point - this is where a city planning department should come in and say that townhomes on the 1300 block of S Indiana do not work.....we're looking for something at least in the 20+ story range there, etc......thereby forcing developer to shave some density off the grant park fronting towers and add it back to the 1300 block (or if the city/alderman is amenable to any further boost in density for the overall pd, if even possible (if not, then they juggle around existing allotted FAR to accomodate high rise in 1300 block).....

Apparently there was another public meeting about this tower yesterday, luckily Sloopin has a report: http://www.sloopin.com/2016/03/town-...t-heights.html

• Phase I of the project is scheduled to begin in June 2016
• There will be approximately 100 paid parking spaces available to the public on a daily basis
• Phase II is expected to have some commercial/retail space on the lower floors
• All units in Phase I are being built to "Condo specifications" and may be sold as condominiums at a later date in the future.

Also:
Maybe the 1300 lot will be a tower after all?

Looks like some neighborhood group that I've never heard of started a petition about the project. Like most NIMBY groups I'm sure their lack of good points is made up for with lots of passion. Other than the parking count I'm pretty much on board with the tower.

http://southloop.webs.com/

^There's nothing unreasonable about their concerns, save for point #4. I can't possibly understand how someone can expect to prohibit the production of homes because of the effect that the increase in supply will have to their own home value. That's an embarrassing plea to air publicly.

It gets a little more ridiculous on the petition page where they claim that

This was a high profile announcement there is no reason they shouldn't have gotten their shit together a while ago.

Point two is total bullshit too in my opinion. The North Side of the park has the exact same situation, just more buildings.

Point 3 is kind of stupid too, they are over estimating what 1200 parked cars will actually lead to in terms of traffic.

Really the only legit gripe I see is point 1 because of the previously built buildings, but not really too concerned with their loss

There are only 2 legitimate gripes about this tower. (1) there may be slightly too much parking. (2) the top of the building could look a bit less awkward. Given its location, there's nothing else legitimate to complain about let alone protest.

1,200 parking spaces 2 blocks from a major subway and 'L' combo station, next to all the buses of Michigan Avenue, and walking distance to most necessities and parkland, is simply unnecessary and motivates car owners to live there and drive places as opposed to people dedicated (or resigned) to living car-free and supporting the walkability of the immediate neighborhood.

Funny thing is, the same people will complain about the lack of parking in the neighborhood. You go to these meetings and they bitch and moan bout inadequate parking in the area with so places for when friends and family come to visit.

Fine, lower the number of spaces and reduce the back base height from 17 floors to 13 or 14 floors. You know they'll find something else to complain about.

They want underground parking in an area that's virtually landfill. Are they planning on paying for the expense?

It's not stupid if you think of who their customer base is. While I never see myself needing a car, especially if I'm living close to public transit, the +40 population likes having 2+ cars, and that's just reality

It is not just reality. Continual proclamation of annectdotal observations as facts does not make them so.

You literally could have made that sentence, "you didn't back your claims with data", no need to try way too hard to sound smart. Also, I don't understand how my claim is wrong? Would less parking spaces be preferable? Yeah, but again as I said, the place isn't going to be attracting that many car free 20-30 year old buyers. That's just not the price market we are looking at here.

But this has been studied. And it has been found that too much parking is being built within the city. It's even been published.

This particular site does deserve a lower parking ratio.

Maybe when the west tower is designed, it can have less parking, especially as they'll have a sense as to how much parking in this particular tower is being used.

the zoning for this area requires .55 parking spaces per residential unit.

These are the same NIMBYs that were ready to destroy PDNA and forced Dowell to replace the planned fix for overcrowding at South Loop Elementary with a school plan that was so toxic it never saw the light of day (anyone remember the public meetings for this building last year when she said she was hoping to unveil a school plan by November/December?). She's lucky city hall leaked it to people that could talk to her in private and bring her to her senses. Hopefully she's learned not to listen to this NIMBY group again.

http://www.cnt.org/publications/stal...-affordability

It doesn't quite say what you're implying. The study only looked at rental buildings, for one - condo buyers generally prefer to have a parking space, because even if they don't personally drive, the space increases the resale value of the unit and adds to the pool of potential buyers.

Also, the study didn't attempt to measure rents, either, so we can't say for sure whether more expensive units have greater utilization of parking.

There probably is a significant unmet demand for units without parking, but it's worth noting that Chicagoans without cars can already opt out of parking and reap the savings by living in a vintage building, many of which are renovated and offer a standard of living similar or equal to new construction.

You have my attention now.....sounds fascinating.....don't want to veer off-topic here, but would love to know more of this story......I just wonder what that group proposed, and how they were able to convince the alderman of something that apparently should have been obvious to her as a non-starter..........it's a little scary how some of these wacky nimby groups can catapult form the woodwork seemingly overnight and unleash their crazy views onto some poor alderslob who's only too happy to entertain their views for pander opportunities.......(this is not to say that I disagree with all the points this one laid out - I don't actually.....however my understanding is this is now fully entitled - having just completed the process, and all that's left now would appear to be permits - so the time is past for them)........for another example, I'm thinking of that newish nimby splinter group that popped up in the West Loop - the real militant one that was holding up - and ridiculously forced changes to (through the alderslob) the 111 S Peoria project, now being entitled in changed form......