HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1321  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 4:09 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 27,396
^ Woah, 605'? That's quite a bit taller than the 515' figure that was initially reported. Nice.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1322  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 12:18 PM
UrbanLibertine UrbanLibertine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 311
Demolition permits issued yesterday to tear down 8 of Atrium Village buildings (at Wells and Division). Looks like they're moving forward with that section of the redevelopment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1323  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 12:23 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
I'm getting somewhat irked by the Frankenstein-like combos of towers I've seen in recent proposals. As if firms had multiple designs and just no-clipped them through each other in a program instead of picking.

Yeah, those 'mash-ups' drive me crazy as well......plus, it's really a fad from the late 90s, early 00s that has run its course........ I mean, pick one or the other, already!
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1324  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:10 PM
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,657
Thanks for the Essex Inn report. Much appreciated. I assumed they released renderings for this one simply to avoid the new Affordable Housing regulations, but they seem serious with the construction schedule. REALLY looking forward to this beauty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1325  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:18 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
Thanks for the Essex Inn report. Much appreciated. I assumed they released renderings for this one simply to avoid the new Affordable Housing regulations, but they seem serious with the construction schedule. REALLY looking forward to this beauty.
They filed when they filed to avoid the affordable housing ordinance. The are same folks who brought up the Hotel Helix, The Langham and are doing London House. They're serious.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1326  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:42 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
They filed when they filed to avoid the affordable housing ordinance. The are same folks who brought up the Hotel Helix, The Langham and are doing London House. They're serious.
And brought the Godfrey to completion, too, I think, after its original plan got stalled?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1327  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:43 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS! View Post
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.
I have to believe that the change to remove the stilts and the height increase to 600' are related. The engineering is already difficult and more mass? Also a point I haven't seen brought up, the rendering of the stilts has them very clean and slender. Nowhere are the joints the size of an SUV, really aren't any joints at all. Which means the design wouldn't be elegant as shown.

So did they take the spend from the stilts and put it towards more floors? Better ROI. And from my point, I'd rather have more skyline impact than stilts that as I said aren't that visible due to the Grant Park trees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1328  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:47 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,770
It seems there was another community meeting last night for this guy





From DNA Info
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1329  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:52 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,093
^^^ Ugh. I'd rather see something half that size that didn't give a giant middle finger to the street with 5 stories of blank wall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1330  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:55 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,770
Also article on Essex and Jahn proposals
Sky High Towers Proposed for Michigan Avenue Draw Tough Crowd at Meeting - DNAinfo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1331  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 1:56 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 27,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
I have to believe that the change to remove the stilts and the height increase to 600' are related. The engineering is already difficult and more mass? Also a point I haven't seen brought up, the rendering of the stilts has them very clean and slender. Nowhere are the joints the size of an SUV, really aren't any joints at all. Which means the design wouldn't be elegant as shown.

So did they take the spend from the stilts and put it towards more floors? Better ROI. And from my point, I'd rather have more skyline impact than stilts that as I said aren't that visible due to the Grant Park trees.
from the DNA info article that rlw77 just posted, it appears that the design the developer presented at last night's meeting still included the stilts, so.......... height increase AND stilt retainage, win-win!
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1332  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 2:56 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,770
the New City cam is still up and providing some interesting crane filled skyline views from the North.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1333  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 3:51 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
^^^ Ugh. I'd rather see something half that size that didn't give a giant middle finger to the street with 5 stories of blank wall.
Monolithic parking podium is blank and uninspired. ONE STAR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1334  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 4:00 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Monolithic parking podium is blank and uninspired. ONE STAR.
could easily do retail there. WTF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1335  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 4:04 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
It seems there was another community meeting last night for this guy
PH has got to go (this is the building that had the elevation that was posted a while back that was attributed to them, right?). The treatment of the garage is beyond piss poor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1336  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 4:06 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
PH has got to go (this is the building that had the elevation that was posted a while back that was attributed to them, right?). The treatment of the garage is beyond piss poor.
Anyone know whose ward this is? I'd be happy to write them an email about this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1337  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 4:06 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
and curb cuts as well it looks like...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1338  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 4:08 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by maru2501 View Post
could easily do retail there. WTF
Very true. There's practically zero retail on Dearborn from Chicago to Division save a couple dry cleaners, Chicago Q and the semi-private cigar club that opened in the old Biggs Mansion (which is very coo btw). I'm not sure if the lack of retail is incidental or by design; ie zoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1339  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 6:59 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Very true. There's practically zero retail on Dearborn from Chicago to Division save a couple dry cleaners, Chicago Q and the semi-private cigar club that opened in the old Biggs Mansion (which is very coo btw). I'm not sure if the lack of retail is incidental or by design; ie zoning.
It seems that zoning is the deciding factor for lack of retail. A good portion of that stretch of Dearborn is either RM (Residential Multi-unit) or Planned Development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1340  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2015, 7:15 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Monolithic parking podium is blank and uninspired. ONE STAR.
Not to mention, why does it even need parking? Especially so much parking - I mean look at that photo and how many other garages there are in the vicinity. It should be an opportunity to reduce the parking ratio in the neighborhood. And the blank wall sucks. It seems like they should put microapartments along that wall and market them as artist studios. I mean, it would be appropriate given their two neighbors to the south. It's really too bad Amazon has killed bookstores, a retail space there that was a bookstore and also carried a select number of art supplies could probably do pretty well otherwise, and not be the sort of retail that would irritate the neighbors.

Other than that, the part above the podium isn't bad. Not groundbreaking, but not bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.