![]() |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
^ 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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
^ 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.... |
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Updated rendering via Curbed: https://twitter.com/curbedchicago/st...54226818580482
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEaRXxuWAAAqKnU.jpg Curbed Chicago |
|
^^^ kind of reminds me of Lowes with the serback balcanies.
|
Doesn't seem much different from the original proposal
|
^ 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:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 9:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.