CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7 - Page 64

Skyguy_7 · #**1261** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

I have an acquaintance who works for Halvorson & Partners. I spoke to him on Friday and he told me one of his projects was to work on the structural engineering for 800 S. Michigan. He told me they are considering doing away with the stilts because of cost. The figure he quoted me was that the stilts would add about 5 million to the project budget and that each connection joint where angled stilts connect with each other would cost at least $100,000 and be about the size of an SUV. The stilts themselves would be made of reinforced concrete incased in metal. All of this of course would need to be custom made. I told him I really hope they keep the stilts as it is the most architecturally compelling aspect of the project. I didn't tell him this but $5 million doesn't seem that bad for such a significant design aspect of a project that I would guess would cost more than $200 million.

PLEASE encourage him to encourage his client to keep the "stilts". Only $5 million separates this tower from all the others. It will be money well spent. Plus, if they buy his schpeele, you and your acquaintance will have a direct impact on the Michigan Ave streetwall. Might as well call one another "Burnham and Root."

SamInTheLoop · #**1262** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

I seriously doubt it would cost more than $200 million - that would mean each of the 388 units would cost over a half million to construct and there's about 10 per floor, so I'm not seeing them being excessively huge. But $5 million does mean nearly $13,000 extra per unit, which doesn't seem impossibly expensive to absorb.

I don't think (a little over) $200 mil. is really out-of-whack for total construction cost for this project.......feels about right to me (keep in mind this would presumably be a quite high-end building with the corresponding finishes, amenities/common areas, etc)..........now they may be trying to VE it down to something more like the $175-190 mil. neighborhood, which to me also sounds feasible.....and it's no surprise of course that the engineering and design feature being talked about here would be a prime target as part of that VE mix......(to be completely honest, it surprised me that it was part of the first - publicly-released rendered - design in the first place.......seems more like a very early concept that gets cut before the public even gets a glimpse).....

That being stated, totally agree it would be a shame to see this element nixed.........if that does happen, I still think HPA's final design will likely be appealing.....

SamInTheLoop · #**1263** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

According to Crains they received a construction loan. So it's all a go now.

Nice!! How long have we been waiting for this one? I'm sure it hasn't been quite this long, but it sure feels like 4-5 years!

SamInTheLoop · #**1264** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 3:59 PM**

[QUOTE=spyguy;7209764]New one per Ald. Reilly:

Love that gem at the end

[/QUOTE

I almost doubt this is an actual proposal without a rendering courtesy of you!

I am somewhat confused though. So, is this the exact same parcel that would have been part of Fifield's K Station (K2 South) development? If it is, isn't part of the K Station PD? Or, is this actually a different parcel in the immediate area? I'd thought that Fifield combined the units from what would have been the 2 towers into the one (built K2)..........Is Fifield the developer behind this proposal? If so, I'll take a wild stab at who the architect is (

)

SamInTheLoop · #**1265** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 4:04 PM**

Thanks for those new renderings, Sr Munch!

Liking this project even more now.....I think it's a really well-designed piece of infill for the NW Loop.......I've gotta say, I'm loving what I see out of Roszak these days......I hope he continues to pump out these medium-larger size infill projects around various corners of the Loop and near-S and near-W Loop this cycle.......very good stuff IMO......

SamInTheLoop · #**1266** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 5:52 PM**

So Crain's just reported on this new proposal (long e-w parcel south of K2) for which there will be a community meeting with the panderman next week (nov. 3).......being jointly hosted by Reilly and NOWL (Neighbors of West Loop). Who exactly is this outfit? Seems like the splintering of WLCO and proliferation of exiled branches of WLCO may be continuing? Anybody know the ins and outs of all these groups/what their leanings are??

So, we've got NOWL, WLRA (West Loop Residents Association), of course WLCO (West Loop Community Organization - and very interestingly, NOWL omitted WLCO from a list including the other above-mentioned neighborhood community organizations as ones that they collaborate with......which to me clearly suggest a history of bad blood there), and FRDA (Fulton River District Association).....am I missing any others?? Can anyone help us digest and navigate the organized nimby landscape as it stands today in the West Loop? Who's Katy Perry, and who's Taylor Swift - in the ongoing melodramatic, telenovelaic, hissyfit nimby saga that is the West Loop? I sure as shit can't keep up! From what I've seen of WLRA, they are total, bat-shit crazy nimby (enter into evidence: 111 S Peoria proposal fight).....but how should we think about, for instance, ranking all these west loop outfits, from 'most sensible' (if there is one that could potentially be called that.....perhaps a big IF) to most vehemently crazy nimby??

k1052 · #**1267** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 6:07 PM**

If I recall correctly the Neighbors of West Loop are the successor org to the Fulton River District Association.

untitledreality · #**1268** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

You know people like to talk about capping the Kennedy in the West Loop, but it seems like capping between Grand and Lake would be easier since the highway is mostly narrower there and there aren't on/off ramps. It seems like that would do almost as much for that section of the city as a West Loop cap would do. It's already partially capped.

Your comment made me rethink the idea of the Kennedy cap, the on/off ramps continually seem to be a unresolved issue, so why not remove them?

The Ohio Street feeder and the Circle Interchange are both robust enough to handle additional traffic and move them quickly Eastward, and both are isolated from the grid. You would limit the amount of merge points where traffic counts are the highest, all on/off ramps would be higher speed allowing for smoother merging, and East - West traffic would likely vastly improve between the West Loop and West Loop Gate without the frantic lane changes, stopping, merging, and backups. The pedestrian experience moving East - West would also improve dramatically without the ramp frogger death traps.

With no further need for the sloping embankment zones, you could add a full shoulder, then free up the remainder of land area to development. It looks that in most areas the distance between an adjacent property and the shoulder is in the 70-85 foot range, more than enough width for a reasonable structure to be built. The structures could have double frontages, one facing the streets and the other facing inward to a 150-175 foot wide park directly overhead the Kennedy. Together with traditional capping of the Kennedy between Grand and Fulton, you could effectively cover and redevelop 12 linear blocks of downtown from Grand to Van Buren.

Besides the obvious, IDOT, lack of initial funding, current land values being too low to recoup costs by selling the embankment square footage... anyone have something to shoot me down with?

BVictor1 · #**1269** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

New one per Ald. Reilly:

Love that gem at the end

Quote:

346-58 N. Union Street & 347-357 N. Halsted Street

Representatives of the Chicago Self Storage II, LLC development team will present their proposal for the development of a 38-story, 373 dwelling unit residential building. Approximately 158 parking spaces will be provided. The site is currently undeveloped.

WHAT: 346-58 N. Union Street & 347-357 N. Halsted Street

Pappageorge/Haymes

And I'm hearing it's not cute...

ithakas · #**1270** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Pappageorge/Haymes

And I'm hearing it's not cute...

Didn't the Crain's article state that this lot is owned by a California-based investor and not Fifield? Praying that the city's landscape isn't scarred by another Pappagoerge.

BVictor1 · #**1271** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 12:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Didn't the Crain's article state that this lot is owned by a California-based investor and not Fifield? Praying that the city's landscape isn't scarred by another Pappagoerge.

Pray as hard as you want, I was told what I was told by a city official.

Demolition on the old Geno's East should begin much, much sooner rather than later.

SamInTheLoop · #**1272** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 3:20 PM**

^ Great news about the movement on Gino's. You know you're back in a true boom when you have instances of towers going up contemporaneously directly across the street from one another (seems like a half-decent chance Gino's and Debevic's may see first caisson within a month or so of each other.....if not, I'd certainly think less than 2 months).......

^ On the new Union/Halsted proposal, I was heartened when I first read this is actually a new/different developer..........and then of course came the total crash on your news that this is once again the toxic design team (see The Hensley - yes, that's right, that bloody beige abortion on Wells is a P/H!!) of George Pappageorge (if your surname is Pappageorge, why tf would you name your kid "George"?!, but I digress) and David Haymes. Sure, K2 isn't that bad, but let's face if, for P/H that's about as good as it will get. It's like this developer from California is some design-averse know-nothing who just went door-to-door around the K Station area when looking for an architect to select: "Excuse me, but who did your tower?", "Hi, I'm so-and-so from California!, may I ask who did your design work here? I just love it!"

and

(all this being stated, I suppose I should wait for the first renderings by next week - but f that!)

SamInTheLoop · #**1273** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 3:24 PM**

Concrete pump was going up in the core this morning - and she's a beaut! (you know, as concrete pumps go)......

Near North Resident · #**1274** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Great news about the movement on Gino's. You know you're back in a true boom when you have instances of towers going up contemporaneously directly across the street from one another (seems like a half-decent chance Gino's and Debevic's may see first caisson within a month or so of each other.....if not, I'd certainly think less than 2 months).......

^ On the new Union/Halsted proposal, I was heartened when I first read this is actually a new/different developer..........and then of course came the total crash on your news that this is once again the toxic design team (see The Hensley - yes, that's right, that bloody beige abortion on Wells is a P/H!!) of George Pappageorge (if your surname is Pappageorge, why tf would you name your kid "George"?!, but I digress) and David Haymes. Sure, K2 isn't that bad, but let's face if, for P/H that's about as good as it will get. It's like this developer from California is some design-averse know-nothing who just went door-to-door around the K Station area when looking for an architect to select: "Excuse me, but who did your tower?", "Hi, I'm so-and-so from California!, may I ask who did your design work here? I just love it!"

and

(all this being stated, I suppose I should wait for the first renderings by next week - but f that!)

P/H designed those Basecamp townhomes, I think they look pretty nice, their skyscrapers are crap for the most part even though I like Hubbard Place

SamInTheLoop · #**1275** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 5:01 PM**

^ Well, one of the reasons you like Hubbard Place is because P/H had nothing to do with it, actually.

That's an SCB.......

South Side · #**1276** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 10:02 PM**

So how many high rises are under construction in downtown area as of now ? It feels like there more than 20 right now, but I l'm not for sure .

Steely Dan · #**1277** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by South Side

So how many high rises are under construction in downtown area as of now ? It feels like there more than 20 right now, but I l'm not for sure .

click to the first page of this thread and check out the first post. it's a continuously updated list of all the highrise projects and proposals in chicago.

according to the page 1 list, there are currently 29 highrise projects under various stages of construction in chicago right now.

UrbanLibertine · #**1278** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 12:39 AM**

Anyone have an update on the tower proposed on the south side of Chicago Ave near Hudson?

marothisu · #**1279** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine

Anyone have an update on the tower proposed on the south side of Chicago Ave near Hudson?

Went by it the last few weekends - disappointed to see that nothing above ground it looks like. Might be still digging.

r18tdi · #**1280** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 6:22 AM**

Soooo 500 N. Milwaukee is going to be called "Kenect." What a garbage name. I'd love to slap the committee that thought-up that spelling