CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[the urban politician]

From the ground the West Loop has its thriving areas, but it’s still very much lacking.

It has a long way to go

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

What city is that?

This is downtown Fulton Market.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Yes, but the signage on the building is for Parq Fulton, which is the soon-to-open apartment project at 1400 W. Randolph.

I think the SOM-Shapack tower at 1353 Fulton still needs zoning?

They submitted that 6 months ago https://urbanize.city/chicago/post/f...ck-development

Don't really know how to check on the status. Then they released renderings a couple months after that. With soil testing now I just assumed they were good to go. Would they do soil testing without approval?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

They submitted that 6 months ago https://urbanize.city/chicago/post/f...ck-development

Don't really know how to check on the status. Then they released renderings a couple months after that. With soil testing now I just assumed they were good to go. Would they do soil testing without approval?

It surprisingly hasn't been approved yet:

https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

[Chi-Sky21]

The west side of this thing is a hulking block ...the south side of it overwhelms the small buildings on Randolph. Sorry, not really liking how it fits that area.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

The west side of this thing is a hulking block ...the south side of it overwhelms the small buildings on Randolph. Sorry, not really liking how it fits that area.

It'll be more in line with its neighbors in a half decade.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It surprisingly hasn't been approved yet:

https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

Hmm interesting, thanks for looking it up.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

The west side of this thing is a hulking block ...the south side of it overwhelms the small buildings on Randolph. Sorry, not really liking how it fits that area.

It's no more hulking than 167 N. Green to the east across the street.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

From the ground the West Loop has its thriving areas, but it’s still very much lacking.

It has a long way to go

elaborate

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

What city is that?

Reminds me of Downtown Salt Lake City.

[Drcastro]

Does anyone know if NEMA phase 2 is anywhere near happening? I can’t even find a NEMA thread on this forum.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Well, every building doesn't need to be a large, hulking block. There are plenty of reasons to 'break up the massing', not just aesthetic ones either.

Massing is massing. Offsetting the facade rhythm from floor to floor doesn't change that. It is nothing more than a crutch for those afraid to embrace the inherent geometry of a high rise.

That said, it is still very early. I reserve my judgement until the scheme is further developed.

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Well, every building doesn't need to be a large, hulking block. There are plenty of reasons to 'break up the massing', not just aesthetic ones either.

I'd be interested to learn the reasons breaking up the massing is more than just aesthetic. Ease of cleaning the exterior of windows certainly isn't one.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It's no more hulking than 167 N. Green to the east across the street.

True. But 167 N. Green is not very elegant. It's an awkward fatso designed for the sole purpose of maxing out floorplates. The mews are kinda cool, but the overall massing is a blob.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

I'd be interested to learn the reasons breaking up the massing is more than just aesthetic. Ease of cleaning the exterior of windows certainly isn't one.

Economics, site restrictions or irregularly shaped sites, poor or inconsistent soil/site conditions, need to maintain specific view corridors, zoning considerations/FAR restrictions, structural system considerations, easement or right-of-way restrictions, placating neighbors or government entities, among many others..

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Economics, site restrictions or irregularly shaped sites, poor or inconsistent soil/site conditions, need to maintain specific view corridors, zoning considerations/FAR restrictions, structural system considerations, easement or right-of-way restrictions, placating neighbors or government entities, among many others..

Economics: worse - higher costs to offset massing, post construction as well/maintenance
site restriction: ground floor parameters matters the same for both, only first offset is required (1000 S. Mich)
poor soil/site conditions: same for both, maybe even worse for offsetting
zoning: ??
structural: worse
easement: ground floor only (depending)
Placating government entities: huh?

I'll concede maybe there is more to know about the advantages of offsetting massing other than aesthetics. Which can be very cool. (ie:Rubenstein Forum)

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

The west side of this thing is a hulking block ...the south side of it overwhelms the small buildings on Randolph. Sorry, not really liking how it fits that area.

Agree. It seems way too massive. The volume looks clumsily divided and arranged, but from ground level in real life maybe it would feel right (not holding my breath on that). All the architectural acrobatics in the world aren't going to nullify the sheer size of this thing. I wish the pro forma for WL was low-to-mid-teens floor counts with interesting designs that pull back from the lot edge as they rise (like some in Chelsea in Manhattan) rather than these ill-conceived attempts at size deception.

[sentinel]

Edit

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Economics: worse - higher costs to offset massing, post construction as well/maintenance

Private outdoor spaces and terraces add a lot of value that is captured in higher rents.

Apartments rent for more if they have a pool deck, hotels can charge more, and even office tenants now see value in outdoor spaces.

Also not sure you really do have higher costs, so long as you can carry your loads to grade and you don't need to rely on cantilevers or transfer beams. There's some cost to waterproofing and thermalizing the terrace area, but this is small compared to the value that is added with usable outdoor space (ymmv of course).

All downtown towers end up as some form of tower on podium, because parking areas need to fill the lot for efficiency while towers want to step back from the lot lines for natural light and views. In the cases where it isn't a tower on a podium, it's because they elected not to do parking, or because they simply pushed the podium underground.

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Private outdoor spaces and terraces add a lot of value that is captured in higher rents.

Apartments rent for more if they have a pool deck, hotels can charge more, and even office tenants now see value in outdoor spaces.

Also not sure you really do have higher costs, so long as you can carry your loads to grade and you don't need to rely on cantilevers or transfer beams. There's some cost to waterproofing and thermalizing the terrace area, but this is small compared to the value that is added with usable outdoor space (ymmv of course).

All downtown towers end up as some form of tower on podium, because parking areas need to fill the lot for efficiency while towers want to step back from the lot lines for natural light and views. In the cases where it isn't a tower on a podium, it's because they elected not to do parking, or because they simply pushed the podium underground.

Good point about the value of outdoor spaces. Originally, I had the more common practice of "twisting" the massing sections like a spun Jenga tower when debating any advantages other than aesthetics. And, who knows, maybe that goes a long way for selling units. Whatever the case, it looks like that fashion will be here a while.