CHICAGO | The Row (900 W Randolph) | 495 FT | 43 FLOORS - Page 8

10023 · #**141** Posted **Mar 28, 2018, 8:23 AM**

I don’t mind the shortening in this location. It’s still quite tall for the neighborhood. I would actually like to see the West Loop become a mid-rise neighborhood like SoHo.

230Roberto · #**142** Posted **Mar 28, 2018, 3:03 PM**

Now we can expect a height reduction for 725 W. Randolph, which would be a total nightmare.

k1052 · #**143** Posted **Mar 28, 2018, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

Now we can expect a height reduction for 725 W. Randolph, which would be a total nightmare.

Maybe a but but we'll still see a 40ish floor tower at 725. Which is probably what they really want to build in the first place...

left of center · #**144** Posted **Mar 28, 2018, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

Now we can expect a height reduction for 725 W. Randolph, which would be a total nightmare.

725 W Randolph is east of the cut off line for the NIMBYs at Halsted. There might be some push back from them, but they need to pick and choose their fights; I'd imagine they have bigger threats to try and contain ("won't somebody think of the children!?!"). My guess (and hope) is that 725 won't be reduced in height too much, if at all.

chicubs111 · #**145** Posted **Mar 28, 2018, 9:38 PM**

[QUOTE=the urban politician;8135294]Because NIMBYs are buttheads.

I agree about the tall and skinny theme should be the direction for alot of future buildings in this city but we have to play this game with the NIMBYS.. we can make a building initially really tall especially (relative to the areas) as in this case in the fulton market neighborhood because it will be too much for the NIMBYS to handle so we propose really tall...then say "ok we will compromise" and cut it down by 100 ft or whatever.. this lays the groundwork for the even taller buildings and gives developers a reference to point for future developments to bump up the height ...I just hope someday NIMBYS would be like 1000ft is too tall cut it down to 900ft for areas this far west

sentinel · #**146** Posted **Mar 28, 2018, 10:54 PM**

Possible spoiler alert: the developers most likely wanted the height to be around 500' but artificially inflated the height to what was originally presented, in order to see how the NIMBY shitheads would react...knowing full well that they wouldn't bite, so they 'acquiesced' to something below 500' in order to make the NIMBYs feel like they won some sort of concession. This is not uncommon.

marothisu · #**147** Posted **Mar 28, 2018, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

Possible spoiler alert: the developers most likely wanted the height to be around 500' but artificially inflated the height to what was originally presented, in order to see how the NIMBY shitheads would react...knowing full well that they wouldn't bite, so they 'acquiesced' to something below 500' in order to make the NIMBYs feel like they won some sort of concession. This is not uncommon.

LOL - not at all surprised. I kind of like it to be honest..

Kumdogmillionaire · #**148** Posted **Mar 29, 2018, 1:40 AM**

Much better looking at this height, and they knew it all along. They made these changes almost instantaneously, telling me exactly what Sentinel is saying. They planned this out months ago

Siriusly · #**149** Posted **Mar 30, 2018, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Much better looking at this height, and they knew it all along.

How does it look "much better" at this height? Nothing changed except the spacing at the top levels where the arches appeared more pronounced and had better flow....Now it looks arbitrarily sheered off and cluttered.

Siriusly · #**150** Posted **Mar 30, 2018, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

Possible spoiler alert: the developers most likely wanted the height to be around 500' but artificially inflated the height to what was originally presented, in order to see how the NIMBY shitheads would react...knowing full well that they wouldn't bite, so they 'acquiesced' to something below 500' in order to make the NIMBYs feel like they won some sort of concession. This is not uncommon.

The ole switch-a-roo is definitely the most believed theory whenever there is a height reduction.

I just don't get why Related wouldn't propose '645 to get the '570 "they wanted to build all along."

Jibba · #**151** Posted **Mar 30, 2018, 7:07 PM**

I don't imagine this proceeding as revised. It's also still really cheesy.

Siriusly · #**152** Posted **Mar 30, 2018, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

I don't imagine this proceeding as revised. It's also still really cheesy.

I actually like the materials, color, design and base, the way they borrowed from the EL tracks and all the but I have no clue what neighborhood destroying negatives a 570' building brings that a 495' building doesn't. These pointless power struggles are frustrating as hell.

HomrQT · #**153** Posted **Mar 30, 2018, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusly

How does it look "much better" at this height? Nothing changed except the spacing at the top levels where the arches appeared more pronounced and had better flow....Now it looks arbitrarily sheered off and cluttered.

I agree, I don't personally see how a height cut makes things "better" here.

Khantilever · #**154** Posted **Mar 30, 2018, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I agree, I don't personally see how a height cut makes things "better" here.

Because there’s no better way to ruin a neighborhood than to make the skyline look unbalanced from a helicopter perspective.

Kumdogmillionaire · #**155** Posted **Mar 31, 2018, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusly

How does it look "much better" at this height? Nothing changed except the spacing at the top levels where the arches appeared more pronounced and had better flow....Now it looks arbitrarily sheered off and cluttered.

Personal preference... The proportions were wacky at 570 feet. I like my towers to be a bit thicc

ChiTownWonder · #**156** Posted **Apr 3, 2018, 6:50 PM**

I'm in support of the change. The tower is still vastly taller than anything around it, and it was widened by less than an adult humans arm span. I also don't think this throws off the balance of the skyline, it wont be visible from the iconic lake views, from the west it will blend in with the taller loop towers, and from the north and south it will only extend the skyline further west. I hope this one makes it!

r18tdi · #**157** Posted **Apr 3, 2018, 9:47 PM**

Still taller than Skybridge and basically matches 727 W. Madison. And way better architecture than both IMHO.

rgarri4 · #**158** Posted **May 21, 2018, 12:39 PM**

SteelMonkey · #**159** Posted **May 21, 2018, 2:28 PM**

Great perspective on that last rendering. Really gives you a feel of how it will look should everything come to fruition.

gebs · #**160** Posted **May 23, 2018, 6:55 PM**

Tonight on another episode of "Of Course This Is Happening" with Obvi McEyeroll:

Fulton Market groups oppose developer's 43-story tower

"Two influential neighborhood groups have voiced their opposition to a 43-story condominium tower that Related Midwest wants to build in the heart of the West Loop neighborhood, saying it's too tall, among other things. At 495 feet, the high-rise at 170 N. Peoria St. would be the tallest structure in the Fulton Market District, dwarfing the historic low-rise industrial buildings nearby."

"After much thought and discussion with our members, WLCO and its members believe the zoning change request is materially out of character with the existing and proposed developments of the Fulton Market/West Loop neighborhood," Carla Agostinelli, executive director of the neighborhood group, wrote in a May 8 letter to Ald. Walter Burnett, 27th, who represents the area in the City Council. "It (is) WLCO's recommendation that the height of the Planned Development exceed no more than 200 feet."