CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Isn't the generally accepted term (at least on this site) for supertall 300M? This building is above that threshold.

It is, but 984' doesn't quite sound as sweet as 1,000'

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by 10023

It's too bad that stupid little restaurant wouldn't sell. They could push the main tower back to the west side of the block, and actually build a square in the corner facing Holy Name Cathedral. Would be a dramatic space with the church on one side and a huge tower on the other.


Now the real question... when this is U/C, will it go in the Supertall forum or the Highrise forum at 998ft?

I find it very bizarre that they didn't sell. There was a discussion in the Wrigley-area development thread about a similar situation, but this particular case has the balance tipped much further (presumably). For all I know, JDL could be playing the long game. They could have low-balled them and then rendered the site to showcase how oppressed their property would be in order to exert pressure on them. Granted, they submitted plans to the city with that property excised from the block, but that's something that can be rectified with a PD amendment down the road (which is probably administrative for the city). The towers are sited at opposite corners, so the architectural revisions couldn't be that troublesome.

[Yesh222]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Isn't the generally accepted term (at least on this site) for supertall 300M? This building is above that threshold.

A few years ago, generally accepted in America was 1,000 feet while the rest of the world set the bar at 300M. Now it seems that everyone has settled on 300M, for the most part.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I find it very bizarre that they didn't sell. There was a discussion in the Wrigley-area development thread about a similar situation, but this particular case has the balance tipped much further (presumably). For all I know, JDL could be playing the long game. They could have low-balled them and then rendered the site to showcase how oppressed their property would be in order to exert pressure on them. Granted, they submitted plans to the city with that property excised from the block, but that's something that can be rectified with a PD amendment down the road (which is probably administrative for the city). The towers are sited at opposite corners, so the architectural revisions couldn't be that troublesome.

It honestly doesn't look that "oppressed" in the renderings. It looks like the architects are doing their best to make it look dignified, actually.

Maybe the restaurant owner just doesn't want to sell at any price, he just wants to run his business and get left alone. Maybe he got offended and now carries a grudge. Maybe the building is owned by one party, but the restaurant is owned by another party who rents on a long-term lease that can't be broken. Maybe an influential politician likes to eat at that restaurant, and pressured the developers to leave it alone. There could be a million things going on, we'll probably never know the full story.

However, the renderings show a full suite of windows along the property line facing the diner. That means one of two things: either the developer is spending an assload of money on fire-rated windows and fire shutters behind each (less likely), or the developer has purchased an easement over the diner property that prevents the diner from ever being built tall (more likely). Such an easement does not need to be referenced in the PD. (There's also a third option, which is that the developers are doing a bait and switch, and the building will actually get built with a blank wall).

Honestly, I don't know why this gets forumers so riled up. This is a city. It's imperfect, and it's glorious. Every block is a mishmash of buildings from different styles and eras, highrises next to townhouses next to little diner shacks.

[the urban politician]

^ Another possibility is that the developer is wagering that nothing substantial will ever get built on the footprint of the diner. A reasonable wager considering how narrow the site is.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Honestly, I don't know why this gets forumers so riled up. This is a city. It's imperfect, and it's glorious. Every block is a mishmash of buildings from different styles and eras, highrises next to townhouses next to little diner shacks.

I'm less riled up than I am bemused. JDL is paying $100+ MM for the site, so I find it interesting to speculate on the reasons behind it (in a social psychological way). I don't think that it will look particularly bad, and it will be a point of curiosity to passers by, much the same way it is to us now.

But the area occupied by the restaurant could (hypothetically) be allocated to the plaza fronting State (presuming developer benevolence is ill-advised, I know), which I'd rather have than an architectural instance of city politics and deal-making (though, that has its value, I agree).

I still think it looks "oppressed" in the sense that it has sheer elevations on both sides of it. It looks to me very much like the developer was looking to maximize every inch of the abutting perimeter, which doesn't feel dignified to me (this is all irrespective of the financial rationalizations, of course). I would have preferred if they would have used its footprint as a template for adjacent set-backs, that way deferring to its plot somewhat (as opposed to swallowing it up from all sides).

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Another possibility is that the developer is wagering that nothing substantial will ever get built on the footprint of the diner. A reasonable wager considering how narrow the site is.

Plan Review won't let you make a "wager" like this. You simply can't put that much glass on a property line without very costly measures to protect and fireproof the wall assembly, which would be stupid if the neighbor's property rights to develop remain intact, and all those windows get blocked down the road.

You'd be better off building a fireproof solid block wall and cladding it in fake windows, that way you avoid the cost of rated windows and fire shutters, and don't lose any views if the neighbor decides to develop.

The only reason to invest in expensive rated window systems is if the neighboring building sells you a legally binding easement that restricts their development rights in perpetuity and preserves open space outside the windows by some reasonable amount.

[Mikelacey45]

Any updates on this building ?

[maru2501]

topped out!


sorry I love making SSP 2002 jokes

[the urban politician]

Heading up and down State yesterday the gaping hole in front of Holy Name becomes ever more apparent, especially knowing that there is now a huge proposal for this site. This project (or at least something substantial) needs to happen.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Heading up and down State yesterday the gaping hole in front of Holy Name becomes ever more apparent, especially knowing that there is now a huge proposal for this site. This project (or at least something substantial) needs to happen.

I know I don't live there anymore, and while height would be awesome I'd even be happy to see a few 50-60 story buildings there with an ample amount of retail. It's incredible this thing stayed vacant (in terms of having a building there or not) as long as it did.

[spyguy]

https://www.enr.com/articles/43346-o...-962-feet-tall

One Chicago Square Promises Two Towers, One of Them 962 Feet Tall

A proposed development with a 962-foot-tall residential tower directly across the street from Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral was unveiled last week. One Chicago Square still needs approval from the Chicago City Council and will not begin construction until next summer even if it is approved. The taller tower would be Chicago's sixth-largest building and structural engineer Ron Klemencic, CEO and Chairman of Magnusson Klemencic Associates pointed out some of the more regionally interesting points of the design of the taller tower in a phone conversation.

"The most unusual part of that design is that we’re using very high-strength concrete," Klemencic says. "Not so much for its strength, but for its modulus of elasticity. We need the stiffness. We’re specifying what is, in my experience the highest modulus of elasticity in Chicago, it’s 7,000 kilopounds per square inch modulus."

[left of center]

Seems like it keeps getting shorter with every new article

[marothisu]

^ Or the articles have no idea, like many articles.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by left of center

Seems like it keeps getting shorter with every new article

No. We've talked about the 962 figure ad nauseam

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by rlw777

No. We've talked about the 962 figure ad nauseam

Super unnecessary to be dismissive unless you have Asperger's.

[healthiswealth]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

Super unnecessary to be dismissive unless you have Asperger's.

What a completely uncalled for comment. While his was short tempered, yours was much more socially inappropriate.

[Domer2019]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

Super unnecessary to be dismissive unless you have Asperger's.

See page 12. It's not a "trend" per se. That's really all you need to convey to avoid an unnecessary broken record of discussion. Brevity is a virtue.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by healthiswealth

What a completely uncalled for comment. While his was short tempered, yours was much more socially inappropriate.

That was indeed the point.

[maru2501]

if it gets much shorter they should dispense with all the dramatic setbacks