CHICAGO | The Row (900 W Randolph) | 495 FT | 43 FLOORS - Page 22

BVictor1 · #**421** Posted **Mar 20, 2022, 12:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Thanks.

It'll be interesting to see how they pull this off. Those are chunky steel beams and steel bracing components, etc.in the renders. Now it's cladding? K. Grab some popcorn.

It was always cladding. Concrete frame structure with metal cladding.

One the very first page of this thread there's a diagram of the building with materials.

LouisVanDerWright · #**422** Posted **Mar 21, 2022, 4:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Thanks.

It'll be interesting to see how they pull this off. Those are chunky steel beams and steel bracing components, etc.in the renders. Now it's cladding? K. Grab some popcorn.

The same way they pulled off the nearly identical style tower Morris built over on 290...

ardecila · #**423** Posted **Mar 21, 2022, 9:19 PM**

Very ironic that this is a concrete tower disguised as a steel structure...

Reinsdorf Sucks · #**424** Posted **Mar 21, 2022, 11:27 PM**

03.21.2022

marothisu · #**425** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 3:12 AM**

Just saw it for the first time IRL tonight. Maybe it's because Bridgford was torn down across the street, but this thing is going to feel huge in the area. At least for the time being.

rivernorthlurker · #**426** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 12:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Just saw it for the first time IRL tonight. Maybe it's because Bridgford was torn down across the street, but this thing is going to feel huge in the area. At least for the time being.

Yeah the construction photos of this thing is looking bigger than I realized in the renders.

Also the dual flags is a nice touch.

Jibba · #**427** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Just saw it for the first time IRL tonight. Maybe it's because Bridgford was torn down across the street, but this thing is going to feel huge in the area. At least for the time being.

Raw concrete structure always looks more imposing and massive than a finished building, to me; I think it will visually settle in more once all the cladding and windows are up. I felt the same way about the Optima project in Lakeview -- now that that building is complete, it slots into the streetscape wonderfully, IMO (looked gargantuan when going up).

I still think this development might heavily disturb the dynamic of the area (with its sheer mass). At least the tower is thin-ish. NIMBYs are correct in that it has already served as a precedent for what heights in the area are now conveyed as too tall or not. Oh, well; plenty of other parts of town in which a burgeoning culture can plant roots into a quaintly scaled area, I guess. (Fulton and Carroll W of Ashland? Continuing locations onto W Grand?)

ardecila · #**428** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Oh, well; plenty of other parts of town in which a burgeoning culture can plant roots into a quaintly scaled area, I guess. (Fulton and Carroll W of Ashland? Continuing locations onto W Grand?)

Not really. There's a sharp break between "downtown" and "neighborhood" zoning classifications. The most intense of the neighborhood zoning districts only allows up to 6 stories* unless you file a PD. Takes years and lots of money to get a PD approved, so you might get a sprinkling of taller buildings outside the downtown in certain areas, but not continuous development.

I don't think we will ever see extensive midrise development outside of the downtown zoning perimeter without a drastic overhaul of the zoning code. That still allows some growth areas, but lots of those are under semi-monopoly control by CHA or big developers (JDL, Related, etc).

* = The only exception is RM6 and RM6.5, but there is a taboo against that kind of zoning unless you're near the lakefront.

r18tdi · #**429** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

what are those red areas...transitional DT zones or new DT zoning?

New DT zoning boundaries adopted in 2016. Probably the best thing Rahm ever did.

Jibba · #**430** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

what does this even mean?

Was a (somewhat oblique) reference to the fringe restaurant culture that set up shop in the 90s and 2000s and will eventually be priced out (except for the mega-brand Alinea Group, Hogsalt, Lettuce -type places). I don't think it's a bad thing; I was musing on where they might go next. I don't think way north or west or south is necessary: all the blocks of Grand and the Great Lake streets west of the Kennedy seem like logical next areas for more "restaurant rows".

Jibba · #**431** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't think we will ever see extensive midrise development outside of the downtown zoning perimeter without a drastic overhaul of the zoning code. That still allows some growth areas, but lots of those are under semi-monopoly control by CHA or big developers (JDL, Related, etc).

All the TOD nodes that have popped up since that zoning overlay went into effect have produced little pockets of just that, which is nice. Lakeview, where I live, has a good chunk of that around Belmont. And there are slews of 5-story builds along Western, Lincoln, Milwaukee, etc. (and even Clark now) that are setting a good precedent (not sure if they're any more unit-dense than their shorter, non-elevator siblings, though).

However, the longer I live here (and the older I get), the more I think that the 3-story norm here for most of the neighborhoods is really quite nice. Maybe if all the really major arterials (that are 4-lane in places or are state routes) got a proper zoning boost (rather than a de facto one from the go-to PD process), that would be a good place for the 6 - 10 story builds. Those roads could use the enclosure from taller infill (for sheer hospitability) and have the access and capacity for more units (and are all close together enough to give transit ridership and retail patronage a boost even if the housing lining them is not right smack dab next to a stop or the street itself isn't the shopping strip of the neighborhood).

BVictor1 · #**432** Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 10:47 PM**

03.23.22

SolarWind · #**433** Posted **Apr 5, 2022, 11:54 PM**

April 4, 2022

r18tdi · #**434** Posted **Apr 6, 2022, 1:03 AM**

^800 W. Lake is looking mighty sad and empty in that last photo. Surprised the developers haven't come back with a new plan for apartments since hotels are still sluggish and residential is now allowed north of Lake.

thegoatman · #**435** Posted **Apr 6, 2022, 1:15 AM**

What happened to 800 w lake? Last update was in early 2021

Razorback · #**436** Posted **Apr 6, 2022, 2:04 AM**

I could have sworn I read a few months back the alderman provided an update that the owners/developers were moving in the direction of making this spot residential versus hospitality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

^800 W. Lake is looking mighty sad and empty in that last photo. Surprised the developers haven't come back with a new plan for apartments since hotels are still sluggish and residential is now allowed north of Lake.

Randomguy34 · #**437** Posted **Apr 6, 2022, 2:17 AM**

^ you're correct, it was an interview between Burnett and Real Deal Chicago

thegoatman · #**438** Posted **Apr 6, 2022, 2:46 AM**

hope they keep the zero/low parking

BVictor1 · #**439** Posted **Apr 6, 2022, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

^800 W. Lake is looking mighty sad and empty in that last photo. Surprised the developers haven't come back with a new plan for apartments since hotels are still sluggish and residential is now allowed north of Lake.

Project is in limbo right now.

rivernorthlurker · #**440** Posted **Apr 6, 2022, 3:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

April 4, 2022

The 20' tall arches on the main building on top of the base are going to look mighty fine.