Height: 819 ft
Floor count: 71
Location: South Wabash
Construction end: 2009
Architect: Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz and Associates
Developer: Mesa Development Company

Website (http://www.thelegacyatmillenniumpark.com/)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/516/legacyxk9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

West facade
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1563/legacywestfacezn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2808/legacygrantparktw2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Business
Landmark group fights 67-story Jewelers Row tower

February 4, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter


Taking a stand against a project backed by mayoral allies, a landmarks preservation group is opposing a proposed 67-story tower developers would attach to three buildings in the historic Jewelers Row district along Wabash Avenue.

The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois said a building of that scale is inappropriate for Wabash Avenue and an adjoining landmark district covering Michigan Avenue.

"We think the building shouldn't be that high. This is really the most historic part of downtown," said David Bahlman, the organization's president.

The group outlined its concerns in a letter to Denise Casalino, commissioner of the city's Department of Planning and Development. Her agency is reviewing a zoning proposal that would allow the condominium project. Approval from the city's landmarks panel also would be required.

The building would rise at 21-35 S. Wabash, site of three small buildings that date from the construction boom following the 1871 Chicago Fire. Plans call for the front portions of the structures to be preserved, with the high-rise starting at a 30-foot setback.

The proposal is from the same development team responsible for the 57-story Heritage at Millennium Park at the southeast corner of Randolph and Wabash, just outside the historic district. That project entailed the preservation of building facades along Wabash, and drew Mayor and Mrs. Daley as condo buyers.

The investment team includes construction firm Walsh Group, whose owners have long-standing ties to the Daley family, and Mesa Development LLC. To present their zoning case to the city, they hired the firm Daley & George, where mayoral brother Michael is the lead partner.

Mesa Principal Richard Hanson said the project is in keeping with the mayor's goal of a lively, 24-hour downtown. But he said he's received no explicit or clandestine support from Daley.

"I haven't spoken with the mayor about this," Hanson said. "We are going through the proper channels with the city. We've got a long way to go."

Criticism of the project ignores the presence of skyscrapers already part of the Wabash district or just outside of it, Hanson said. Among them are the 50-story building at 55 E. Monroe and the 44-story CNA Plaza, 325 S. Wabash.

He also argued that the buildings he would take over are mostly empty now above the first floor, and they would be renovated to provide space for the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The developers have a contract to buy the property from the institute under a deal that's been talked about for years.

"Those empty buildings don't do Jewelers Row any good," Hanson said.

Downtown's alderman, Burton Natarus (42nd), voiced unreserved support for the plan. "I have no problem with that at all. We're going to blend it in with Jewelers Row," Natarus said.

A spokeswoman for Casalino had no comment other than that her department is studying the zoning application.

While acknowledging that high-rises co-exist with Jewelers Row, Bahlman said they all pre-date enactment of the historic district in 2003. The designation recognized the district's role in the growth of downtown's retail trade. Adding a high-rise now would open the door for new construction in historic areas nationwide, he said.

His organization is the largest private group in the state that supports preservation, and its board is dominated by leading architects and lawyers.

Hanson said that while the building, which would contain about 335 homes, is tall, its narrow profile would minimize its impact. The architectural firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates Inc., responsible for the well-received Heritage at Millennium Park, has been commissioned for the design.

I say go for it!!! The work done to preserve the facades on the west side of the Heritage has been a resounding success. They look fantastic and will surely enjoy a new lease on life.

Now, naturally, I'm going to push for SCB to actually finish painting this building unlike the Heritage.

Good to hear that they'll preserve the front sections of the buildings, but I'd like to see a rendering before I decide whether it's good or not.

That article makes it sound as if Daley and Natarus think like we do, ie "keep on buildin um and f**k the NIMBY's"

Bahlman's group isn't NIMBYs... They are certainly an incredibly valuable -- and necessary -- voice to have.

Geoff_diamond--are you implying that Heritage is not going to be all white.. that they're going to leave part of that exposed?!??!

^Actually, I'm all for preservation. I am not against a group that feels the same way. But seriously, why can't they recognize concientious development when they see it?

Landmark's friends battle Loop tower

By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 4, 2005


Historic preservationists are fighting to severely cut the size of a proposed 67-story luxury condominium tower in the Loop that they believe will overwhelm a landmark district and disfigure the South Michigan Avenue skyline.


But the advocates seem to be waging an uphill battle: The final touches are being put on a nearby residential tower of similar scale, The Heritage at Millennium Park, soon to be home to Mayor Richard Daley. Also, the development group proposing the tower is represented by John George, an attorney with immense City Hall clout. George is a law partner of the mayor's brother, Michael.

This intersection of influential forces sets up a timeless battle in Chicago: the interests of powerful developers who want to make money and entice new residents downtown versus preservationists who want to maintain the city's architectural heritage.

Preservationists worry that this tower would give developers carte blanche to construct such buildings anywhere in the city, especially during a period when controversial residential condo towers are proposed throughout the Downtown region. Developers argue that the city would be unwise to freeze the current architecture in place, that progress must be embraced and not stymied.

"It's a horrible precedent to be setting," said David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, a non-profit advocacy group. "You can just see condo tower after condo tower along Wabash. And for South Michigan Avenue, the skyline would wind up being a steppingstone to Wabash. It's all just a terrible idea."

Preservationists primarily oppose the tower because it is located in the Jewelers Row Landmark District, which was designated by the city to protect the architecture in a corridor along Wabash Aveune known for its history of jewelry makers.

The 67-story tower would rise one block behind South Michigan from the back of three buildings in the district that run from 21 to 29 S. Wabash. The facades of those historic former jewelry stores likely would be preserved, and retail businesses would fill the first floor of the high-rise, according to the development plan.

But the tower also would alter the South Michigan skyline, as well as add a skyscraper to the surrounding mix of medium-rise buildings along Wabash that are mostly under a dozen stories. The Art Institute of Chicago put the properties on the market last spring.

"You see these kinds of towers all over the city, but we don't think it is compatible in that corridor," said Jim Peters, planning director for the preservation council. "This is a 67-story building added to a three- or four-story building. What does it do to these two historic districts? It would be wedged in between the two."

City planning and landmark officials ultimately must settle the fight. The developers are seeking a zoning change from a mixed-use area to a residential-business planned development area.

The city's Commission on Landmarks also would have to approve the development because it falls inside a landmark district and would visually impact another district, the South Michigan Avenue Historic District.

Preservationists contend that such a tower is a clear violation of city laws governing landmark districts.

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

I share Bahlman's concerns about marring the South Wabash / South Michigan landscape. But on the other hand, these areas hvae to be made viable for development. Maybe instead of just a "yes/no" sort of stamp on the building, the LPCI and the city should demand unbelievably good design before they approve the project. And of course maintenance of the Wabash facades, whenever they are worth keeping.

It's all about balance and the willingness to aknowledge that time marches forward whether we like it or not. We are not living in a vacuum, and must be willing to find viable alternatives to keep the city alive while preserving it's past.
I think that the results of how they kept the feel of Wabash between Washington and Randolph where the Heritage was built turned out well. When your on the sidewalk, you would never know that a 57 story condo tower looms above. If this new project accomplishes the same thing, than I see nothing wrong with it.
As for interrupting the skyline along Michigan.... Come on, it's not as if there are no other highrise buildings in the back ground. This is a city dammit, it is supposed to be dense. Were not talking about building this in Galena or something.

These are the facades in question.

You decide!!!

http://images.snapfish.com/342%3A887523232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E2329%3D959%3D583%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3B4%3A54%3B6%3Bot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/342%3A887523232%7Ffp7%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32327%3A5964%3B44nu0mrj

Well they seem to be mostly boarded up anyway. The building might revitalize that area, while preserving the facades. I don't see a problem with that. I would like there to be a good design there though so that it doesn't ruin the history of the area. Other then that i say the tower should be built, those buildings are just standing there empty.

The plan is to do the same thing they did at Heritage (I hate that name...), which is to preserve the facades at street level. This will preserve the feel at the sidewalk level, which I think is important, while allowing for a highrise, just out of your sightline when standing in front of the buildings.
They plan to do retail on the ground floor, and they will hide parking behind the upper floors of the old facades. I can tell you that at this time, the vast majority of the space on the upper floors of these buildings is vacant.
I think this worked out well at the Heritage, and I think it will work out fine here.

I'm all about reusing historic facades on new buildings. I think this is a practice that could be very widely used around the loop.

Now... to answer ChicagoLover's question: YES... they are leaving that god-aweful color (I like to call it "ran-outta-money-gray") all over the Heritage. Okay, I'm not trying to hijack this thread... but, god damn... I'm NEVER going to let this one go:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/geoff_diamond/Chicago%20-%20Construction/heritage_02050501.jpg

The areas consistent with the two lower red circles are staying grey... as far as the mechanical space on the roof... I'm not sure what they're going to do with the southern portion (it sure has been a LONG time since I've seen painters up there). It just looks like shit... honestly looks unfinished to me.

That is bizarre... How did you find out they were staying grey? How do you know? Can the developer seriously keep in Daley's good graces if he doesn't finish the place where Daley himself will live? The Heritage (despite its name) is a pretty solid building. Looks great in general, but those are pock marks. How could they have run out of money? Aren't they making a a substantial amount on that project?

It seems like the new development on Wabash would be positive, not negative, for preservation. I imagine they'll clean up those facades, and un-board them. It'll look great as long as the tower is set back far from the facades.

That is bizarre... How did you find out they were staying grey? How do you know? Can the developer seriously keep in Daley's good graces if he doesn't finish the place where Daley himself will live? The Heritage (despite its name) is a pretty solid building. Looks great in general, but those are pock marks. How could they have run out of money? Aren't they making a a substantial amount on that project?

I think that the original plan called for those sections to stay grey. Looking back at old renderings of the building you can see that those sections were colored grey. It wasn't a lack of money.

Actually, I believe that that portion of The Heritage will be painted. We must remember what time of year it is. I don't think that this is the best painting weather :)
Who the hell want's to be 600' up in the air whan it's 25 degrees. It's windier and colder the higher up you go. Lets see how it looks but June or july.

^I agree with Butler, I think the weather has a lot to do with the unfinished paint job on the mechanical housing at the top. When I lived up on the far north side, the building at 5320 N Sheridan went condo from apartment and they planned a new painting scheme going from plain white to a nice combo of grays and dark blue. They started the paint job in October, stopped in December, and finished it up in the spring when the weather warmed up enough for the paint to not freeze on the surface. In the meantime, for several months, there was about 25% of the facade that was woefully unfinished and it looked like sh*t.
As for the lower two circles, I think they are supposed to be gray as they are. I am more concerned that they still haven't installed the balcony railings. The lumber rails look worse than the lack of paint.

Well, first off, that picture is from four months ago and little has been done since then. I was never really serious when I joked that they had run out of money, it was a VERY profitable development. But, I maintain that it certainly looks like they came up short.

At any rate, as far as the weather goes... there was PLEANTY of time before it got too cold for them to finish if they were going to - I'm still not convinced that they are going to paint the rest of the mechanical space white :(

You know what, I don't see how they could have possibly run out of money, considering that the very same development company who's doing The Heritage has just proposed constructing a 67-story tower a few blocks to the south on the very same street.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

I was sorting through my thousands of pics and came across these I took last June. Guess we now know who had the highest bid.

http://img231.exs.cx/img231/9997/walk613040898oo.jpg

http://img231.exs.cx/img231/7815/walk613040905ri.jpg

They need a tad bit of help don't they:)???

Especially getting rid of that ugly ass glass block.

These facades will look better than new once everything is completed.

http://img231.exs.cx/img231/9997/walk613040898oo.th.jpg

Just a note, the red brick building on the left (also shown in the giant photo in my previous post) isn't part of the plan. It is the earliest surviving example of Louis Sullivan in the Loop, The Jewelers Bldg, built in 1882. It is on the National Historic Register, so it will remain as it should.

I thought that's what building it was. They should restore that facade as well though, even though it's not apart of the development. Also it's good because it will leave some breathing for the talller structure to the north and not block its windows.

This all seems like such a win-win situation. I hope Bahlman sees the potential of all of this and reverts to being a nag about simply doing it right.

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I'm not :))... isn't 35 E. Wacker the Jewelers Building? How can we have two buildings with the same name?

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I'm not :))... isn't 35 E. Wacker the Jewelers Building? How can we have two buildings with the same name?

Yes, you are correct. But buildings change names all the time. The building on Wacker I believe is now known by its address 35 E. Wacker Drive. The building in Wabash by Louis Sullivan was also known as the Jewlers Building. Like there are 2 Sears Towers, the original one on the west side built in 1904 and the 110 story one on Wacker.

It's possible for two different buildings to have the same name. I guess unless the name is copywritten.

Figured it was possible... it just seems sort of foolish :)

21-39 South Wabash Project


I sent this email this past Friday to the City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development


To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Butler Adams, and I am an architecture student. I was trying to find out information on 21-39 South Wabash Avenue and 52-64 East Monroe, which is a proposed condimunium tower of roughly 67-stories. I went to the City of Chicago website and in the January agenda for the
Chicago Plan Commission, it states that it was Tentatively scheduled to be heard at the February 24th meeting. The was no information about this development in this months adgenda minutes that i've just finished reading. I was wondering if you could possibly tell me the outcome of this proposal?

Butler V. Adams
Architecture Student

THE RESPONSE

Butler:

Thank you for your email.

I am an Assistant Commissioner with the Department of Planning &
Development and oversee all projects in the loop.

Right now, we are still discussing internally and reviewing the
proposal. The project has not been heard before the Chicago Plan
Commission, and will not be heard, until our review is complete.

You may obtain a copy of the Planned Development application in Room 1003 of City Hall. This is the document that was filed with the City Council and outlines the proposed project at Wabash/Monroe.

Please call me with any questions.

Nori Greenstein
Assistant Commissioner
City of Chicago
Department of Planning & Development
City Hall, 121 N. La Salle, Room 1107
Chicago, IL 60602


I will try to get downtown this Friday and obtain a packet, and i'll let you all know what it says...

21-39 South Wabash A.K.A. MINI-TRUMP (you'll see why I say that when I get the documents I have scanned in.

Well I went to the department of Planning & Development today at city hall to obtain a copy of the application for this project. I swear, I wish that I had known about being able to do this before.

As you know that this is a proposed development, so the numbers that I ab about to post are subject to change. Hopefully though, they won't.

-This building will have roughly 360 residential units.

-This building will have roughly 485 parking spaces.

-Residential floors are 15-67

-Floors 68-69 will be the mechanical penthouse

-The building will rise to the roof, a height of 776' 5"

-The buildings heighest point will rise to 796' 5"

As I said, these figures are subject to change because nothings approved. And if they do change in a direction not to your liking, don't come looking for me.

Also, I'll get those diagrams posted as soon as I can.

Bravo BVic! Nice work. Another landmark tower for the Grant Park skyline.

^ What's on the 21-39 S. Wabash site now?

A row of smaller historical buildings osh. At any rate, great info bvic... too bad about the rediculous abundance of parking though :(

At any rate... hurry up with those scans... the suspense is eating me alive!!!

^ What's on the 21-39 S. Wabash site now?


Just scroll down the page, and you'll find out.

almost 800ft?? That is larger then i thought it would be. I really hope this will go through, but being that big, I am a little skeptical if it will go through without getting scaled down. I really hope that it won't though.

I can't wait to see your scan, BV.

This building sound exciting--plus they plan to maintain the fronts of historic buildings at the base. I find no fault in it (except for 14 levels of parking--yuck! I wonder how those will look)

"Just scroll down the page, and you'll find out."

^--- FALSE ADVERTISING!!!!! STRING HIM UP!!!!

I find no fault in it (except for 14 levels of parking--yuck! I wonder how those will look)

How do you think that they look when it comes to the Heritage? The Heritage has 600 parking spaces, if you didn't know that. I personally believe that they're trying to evevate the lower residential units above the University Club building on Michigan Avenue. I don't care about the the number of parking spaces, I care about the aaesthetics of the garage. I think that SCB can pull it off.

21-39 South Wabash Scans

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/40462849.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/40462867.jpg

Remember, no part of this project has been approved, so anything is subject to change.

trump tower, anyone? :) awesome scans, vic!

Great work Butler! Sure does look like a slender version of the original Trump proposal to me :)

This image is from the Illinois Landmark Preservation Council website

http://www.landmarks.org/images/press/lpci2005jrd1.jpg
Three low-rise loft buildings, constructed during the 1870s, were recently placed on the market for redevelopment by the Art Institute of Chicago. Even though they are located within a local landmark district, a prospective new owner has announced plans to construct a 67-story residential tower with a slight set-back from the original five- and six-story facades. The height of the tower would have a negative impact on the character of the Jewelers Row District, as well as on the historic appearance of the adjacent Michigan Avenue “streetwall,” which faces Grant Park and Lake Michigan.



And check this out.
http://landmarks.org/pdfs/jewelers_press.pdf

To be honest, I totally support the tower, and I plan on sending an email to the Council voicing my support. If you guys decide to do the same heres the contact information.

Landmarks Preservation
Council of Illinois
Suite 1315
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604

Telephone (312) 922-1742
Fax (312) 922-8112
E-mail: mail@lpci.org

President
David Bahlman
BahlmanD@lpci.org
Extension 224

even though im a guy that really favors preservation, i think the landmark preservation counsel's getting rather paranoid about this development. if they don't put the site of those 3 low-rises in development, those 3 buildings are gonna remain semi ghetto-looking, and that would still ruin the "streetwall".

i hope they'll pull off another "heritage" on this site well, with a nice tower balanced in terms of use of masonry and glass, just minus the unfinished paint job...lol

DAAAAAAAAAAAAMN THE PAINT JOB!!! DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED!!!

At any rate, the Heritage absolutely did it right! When you're on the east side of Wabash, walking in front of those preserved facades, you're completely oblivious to the fact that a brand-new, 600 foot tower looms above.

I agree with the both of you. And like i've stated before, i'm sure when it all said and done, they'll finish the paint job eventually.

Hell, i'll call and ask if you want me to :)

PLEASE DO!!!! :))

Jewelers Row tower project moves ahead
Condo plan gets OK from landmark panel
By Brendan McCarthy, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune reporter Blair Kamin contributed to this report
Published May 5, 2005


Developers of a proposed 72-story luxury condominium tower on South Wabash Avenue received the go-ahead Wednesday from the city's Commission on Landmarks.

The skyscraper, planned for 21-29 S. Wabash Ave., still needs the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council.

The proposed skyscraper has been hotly debated among civic and preservation groups.

Preservationists primarily oppose the tower because it is located in the Jewelers Row Landmark District, designated by the city to protect the architecture along Wabash Avenue, known for its history of jewelry makers.

Preservationists say city leaders are fast-tracking the project, and that the 816-foot building goes against landmark district rules that limit a building's height and architecture.

Some local civic groups, and the alderman, say the tower would give a much-needed boost to the neighborhood.

The proposal is from Mesa Development LLC, the group responsible for the 57-story Heritage at Millennium Park.

The Heritage is soon to be home to Mayor Richard Daley. John George, an attorney with hefty City Hall clout and a law partner of the mayor's brother, Michael, represents the development group.

The Wabash proposal calls for a slender, wedge-shaped building to be set back about 28 feet from the street.
The tower would include shops, a parking garage, Art Institute of Chicago classrooms, condominiums and a "skypark." A bridge would connect the tower to the University Club. The Art Institute of Chicago put the property on the market last spring.
Initially, the building was planned to be 67 stories tall, but the height was increased after the city's Planning Department recommended a "skypark"--an indoor park for use by the building's condo owners.

The tower would rise at the site of three small buildings. Under the proposal, the upper facades of the three buildings would be retained and restored.

"It can be done in a way sensitive to the historic character," said Brian Goeken, deputy city planning commissioner.

Ald. Burton F. Natarus (42nd) said high-rise buildings will create more property taxes and help "liven up" the downtown area.

Several opponents asked for a delay in approving the proposal at the hourlong public meeting.

David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, a non-profit advocacy group, said all of the buildings in the district, except for one, are under the 280-foot landmark limit.

"If this project is approved, it will send a clear message that zoning, not landmark criteria, is the only thing that matters in a local landmark district," Bahlman said.

A spokeswoman for the Planning Department said the Planning Commission would meet later this month.

This is excellent news. The tower had previously been tapped at 797' and now it's been increased by 18'.

That is awesome news! I hope this gets the go-ahead vote.

WOOHOO!!! BUILD THAT SHIT RIGHT NOW!

I expect to see this tower completed when I get back in town on Monday!

This is outstanding news.

I knew Chicago wouldn't let up on one of its greatest skyscraper construction booms.

4th Presbyterian, you're NEXT

I am dying to see a rendering of this.

I'm no fan of "facadism" finding it hypocritical architecture, but will there be anything happening behind those facades? And what about the facades preserved in the Heritage Millenium building, is there anything happening there or is Wabash turning into a Hollywood set? :wallbash:

816 ft!
Right on!

I'm no fan of "facadism" finding it hypocritical architecture, but will there be anything happening behind those facades? And what about the facades preserved in the Heritage Millenium building, is there anything happening there or is Wabash turning into a Hollywood set? :wallbash:

There is a 2 level retail base on Wabash, which I am sure the facades are a part of.

My only concern is that the facades have a use, ie they are actual entrances to the retail portion of their projects, and they have an interior identity. It would be better if different buildings had different stores inside of them, instead of them being separate on the outside but 1 enclosed space on the inside. Does anybody know how Heritage is arranged?

^ No. What kind of retail is Heritage gonna have?

^ No. What kind of retail is Heritage gonna have?

I will drive past there tomorrow. But I don't believe that the retail portion is open yet. I know that there's a McDonald's in the base.

Fifth Third Bank will be located at 2nd floor of retail base by the alley across the Cultural Center.

^????

Why is the city letting these lousy retailers take up space?

This is a major corridor for pedestrians between Millennium Park and Block 37/theatre district. They should push for some sort of high end apparel stores, entertainment, etc.

ATTENTION ALL CHICAGO SKYSCRAPER FANS, IF YOU SUPPORT THESE PROJECTS YOU MUST ATTEND THE NEXT CHICAGO PLAN COMMISSION MEETING ON THURSDAY MAY 19, 2005 AT 1PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL


1. A resolution in support of a proposed site plan submitted by 110 W. Superior, LLC for the property commonly known as 110 West Superior Street and located within Planned Development No. 946. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 26-story building containing 77 residential units and 85 parking spaces. (42nd Ward) (Nori Greenstein)


2. A proposed Residential Business Planned Development application and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection application submitted by Monroe/Wabash Development, LLC for the property commonly known as 21-39 South Wabash Avenue and 52-64 East Monroe Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 71-story mixed use development including 353 dwelling units, 428 parking spaces, and retail and institutional uses. (42nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)


3. A proposed Downtown Mixed-Use Planned Development submitted by 150 East Ontario, LLC for the property commonly known as 148-158 East Ontario Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 51-story residential tower with retail and commercial space at the first and second floors, 165 dwelling units and 189 parking spaces. (42nd Ward) (Kathy Caisley)


4. A proposed Residential Business Planned Development submitted by 13th & State LLC for the property commonly known as 1255 South State Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 19-story mixed use building containing 14,000 square feet of commercial/retail space at grade, 253 dwelling units above grade and 326 on-site parking spaces. (2nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)


5. A proposed Residential Planned Development submitted by 1454 S. Michigan, LLC for the property commonly known as 1454-68 S. Michigan Avenue. The applicant has proposed the construction of 215 dwelling units, 240 parking spaces and retail and commercial space at the first and second floors. (2nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)


You have a civic duty and pride of a Chicago Skyscraper geek to attend this meeting and show your full support and speak in favor of these projects and challenge the fallicous arguments of the NIMBY's and preservationists.

The Chicago Plan Commission will meet Thursday at 1 pm in the council chambers of City Hall.

Show up at least 20 minutes before 1pm so that you can sign up to speak before the commission and voice your support for these projects*********

I'll try to be there, but, I'm sure as hell not speaking in front of anyone :) Unless the nimbys get my blood boiling!

I'll try to be there, but, I'm sure as hell not speaking in front of anyone :) Unless the nimbys get my blood boiling!

Well, there will be quite a few preservationist combating this one. The only way you get to speak is if you sign up before the meeting begins I believe. I am certainly going to talk, because I want this tower built. Hopefully the fact that I've been giving public tours over the past several summers will help to lessen my nervousness wwhile speaking before the council members. No matter, I'M DOING IT...

Besides this gives me the opportunity to meet the developers of th project and get information about the buildiing, seeing that they have to present before the council.

Well, there will be quite a few preservationist combating this one. The only way you get to speak is if you sign up before the meeting begins I believe. I am certainly going to talk, because I want this tower built. Hopefully the fact that I've been giving public tours over the past several summers will help to lessen my nervousness wwhile speaking before the council members. No matter, I'M DOING IT...

Besides this gives me the opportunity to meet the developers of th project and get information about the buildiing, seeing that they have to present before the council.

If I was in Chicago, I would go in a heartbeat. I urge as many of you to go as possible. COME ON, GUYS!

And don't be scared of speaking. I always get nervous about public speaking as well, but here's an easy solution. Write down everything you want to say the night before, and just read it to them!

Well, just don't forget to post a reminder for us when it gets closer to the date :) At any rate, after my last design presentation, I don't think I'll be speaking in front of a group for a while :)

^????

Why is the city letting these lousy retailers take up space?

This is a major corridor for pedestrians between Millennium Park and Block 37/theatre district. They should push for some sort of high end apparel stores, entertainment, etc.

Unfortunately, there is still vast amounts of vacant space along Wabash... Too much space to entice the kind of retailers I would like to see. While we don't really need yet another bank branch to open up (unless it is my bank), it is better than nothing. At least if there are bank branches it will help draw people which may assist in drawing other retailers to the empty spaces along Wabash.
The space at Heritage is still mostly empty, there is a McDonalds that opened up a couple of months ago (This is just replacing the McD's that was there before.) I suspect the space at the new sight on Jewelers Row will have small retail spaces with a hidden parking structure behind the second and third floors, which is better than the vacant space on the second and third floors that is there now.

I'll try to be there, but, I'm sure as hell not speaking in front of anyone :) Unless the nimbys get my blood boiling!

Don't be nervous, I had to overcome my public speaking issues when I first begin giving tours. It's no big deal. Besides you'll never see these people again anyway, so what do they care about your nervousness.

If you want to speak before the commission, you must sign up before the meeting starts, you just can't interject your opinion, even if that's what you're use to doing:):)...

Sure, I could sign up like a chump, but, at the same time, nobody can stop me from standing up and yelling out something that makes the whole crowd erupt in applause! I've seen it in movies... so that must be how it works!

[QUOTE=Marvel 33 ]Parkitecture 2005


Grant Park Advisory Council
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Daley Bicentennial Plaza, 337 E. Randolph (Grant Park's Fieldhouse)

THERE is currently a trio of high-profile, residential high-rise projects being planned facing Michigan Avenue but not directly on it. The 72-story high-rise planned for 21-29 S Wabash, the 830 S Michigan Avenue high-rise (planned for behind the YWCA Building), and the Fourth Presbyterian Church high-rise are generating both much praise and criticism. Given the cultural, economic and environmental virtues of downtown high-rise living with all its resultant energy and active street life, why the controversy? This question and others will be addressed in our continuing Parkitecture series.

The community surrounding Grant Park is a world-class community with many new residents energizing both the park and the city. The dream of making Chicago's downtown a 24-hour, 7-days-per-week community is quickly becoming a reality. We are seeing things never seen before around Grant Park. People are walking at all hours and on weekends along South Michigan Avenue, quality restaurants and retail establishments are moving in, there are more parents with young children, and dogs are being walked in many areas of Grant Park - all positive signs that there is a vibrant and significant Grant Park residential community taking hold. Grant Park with its much-improved beauty, nature, maintenance and culture is a very important catalyst to creating this vibrant community.

Please join us and our distinguished panel for this important discussion. The panel will include:

Jack Guthman, Partner, Shefsky & Froelich.

John Lahey, President, Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates.

Thomas Kerwin, President, AIA Chicago and Partner, Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

James Peters, Director of Preservation Planning, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

Thank you for your participation,

Bob O’Neill

Phone: 312-829-8015
Fax: 312-243-4095


I will certainly be attending this meeting, is anyone else interested in going?

Oh man, can someone PM me on monday or something to remind me about this? I gotta be there!

These two images are from Lynn Becker's Repeat website:

http://img139.echo.cx/img139/782/tower3tm.th.jpg (http://img139.echo.cx/my.php?image=tower3tm.jpg)
http://img144.echo.cx/img144/3766/parkviewlarge8iz.th.jpg (http://img144.echo.cx/my.php?image=parkviewlarge8iz.jpg)

wow, that is a great looking tower. I really hope that gets built.

That is an interesting rendering! I kinda like it! Good work, wrabbit!


Addition: http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/wabash.htm

I LOVE IT.

Lets post the writings and articles that go along with the renedrings:


Slicing and Dicing the Past to Get to the Future
-by Lynn Becker

Plans to slip a sparkling new condo tower behind vintage facades spurs debate on the nature of architectural preservation.

(Originally published in slightly different and far better edited form under the title "Know When to Fold Them" in the Chicago Reader, May 13th, 2005)

How do you strike a balance in architectural preservation?

http://img132.echo.cx/img132/1685/tower0fo.jpg

Compromise too much and you wind up with an entry arch standing in a park beside the Art Institute, a forlorn remnant of Louis Sullivan's Monroe Wabash Tower, 72 stories of condos, Chicago, Illinois; Solomon Cordwell Buenz architectsdemolished 1893 Stock Exchange Building. Compromise too little and you wind up with "protected" buildings rotting away without purpose or relevance.

Last week the permit review committee of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks was considering Mesa Development's proposal to build a 72-story, 812 foot high residential tower behind four historic loft buildings, the oldest dating back to 1872, on the east side of Wabash between Madison and Monroe - a stretch that's part of the Jewelers Row Landmark District.
Mesa just finished the Heritage Millennium, a 57-story condo tower at Randolph and Wabash, where three historic buildings, including the old Blackhawk restaurant, were demolished except for their facades. Those facades became the front of a new garage, though they were restored to their original luster. It's an often-troubling approach that's become so common that a painfully clinical-sounding term has emerged to describe it: “Facadectomy.”

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/wabashcomposite.jpg

Mesa's plan for the South Wabash buildings is a bit more complex. The facades would be saved, though a garage entrance would be incorporated into one of them. The new building, designed by Solomon Cardwell Buenz, would be constructed behind the facades. At their rooflines, it would emerge as a glass skyscraper, set back 28 feet from Wabash.

At the permit-review meeting the battle lines were drawn in the usual way. In one corner were the developer; 42nd Ward alderman Burton Natarus; and the city's planning bureaucracy. In the opposite corner were representatives of Preservation Chicago, the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, and community groups such as South Loop Neighbors and Friends of Downtown.

"We see this as a real slippery slope," said David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council, at the permit review meeting. "We have no objections to the quality and the design of the building...[but] we can find no instance in Chicago or the U.S. where a new building has been permitted to be constructed in a local landmark district that is so completely out of scale with the heights of the surrounding historic structures. The landmarks commission's own rules and regulations state that new construction in a landmark district must respect the 'general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the district.' We therefore find it difficult to imagine how a 70-story building can be considered respectful of the urban fabric of an historic district...[where] all but one of the tallest structures in this district are less than 280 feet high, or about one-third the height of the proposed condo tower."

"The question before you is whether a landmark district means anything," said preservation activist Martin Tangora . "How are you going to tell the owners of 20 N. Michigan-an eight-story building that's one of the oldest in the street wall-how are you going to tell them that they can't build a 70-story tower on the back all but 30 feet of that lot? How are you going to stop anything on the street wall or in the Jewelers Row district or any other district in Chicago if you allow this to go through?"

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/%20wabash/parkviewlarge.jpg

Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, voiced a concern that was echoed by several other groups that testified. "The issue really is, why is this being rushed?" he said. "We're actually objecting on the basis of process. I found out yesterday that the reason I had not seen the drawings, the reason I was not aware of what the design looked like, is that the design has not yet been publicly released."

“Trump Tower”, Fine continued, "“which was not in a landmark district, which did not involve the facadectomies or the demolition of a historic building-that process was completely open and had the luxury of public scrutiny for months and months and months. Yet this project, which is in a historic district, which does abut a designated Chicago landmark by one of the finest architecture firms in the entire country"”-meaning Louis Sullivan's Jewelers Building-"“somehow this project is being fast-tracked. That disturbs me to no end.”

Mesa attorney John George disputed Fine's contention, saying the application for the development had been filed last November and indeed, Bahlman's group knew enough about the project to begin denouncing it in January. Yet the city clearly wanted to move the project along unimpeded, proof of which was the presence of the commissioner of planning and development, Denise Casalino, who seldom attends permit review meetings and who left as soon as the proposal was approved. Joining her in voting for the project were Ben Weese, the committee's chair, and John Baird, of Baird and Warner, who both praised the sensitivity of the design.

The sole dissenting vote came from committee member Phyllis Ellin, a National Parks Service historian. "What I'm being asked to do today," she said, "is not to give my opinion of whether I like it or not, as a matter of taste, but whether I think it meets the standards and guidelines of the commission. And I have to say I can't say that I feel that it meets the standards.... It's not in keeping with the size and scale of this particular district."

No building is ever declared a landmark down to every brick, window, or tile. Chicago's landmarking ordinances always clearly list those features being afforded protection, most commonly something like "all visible exterior elevations." If other features- such as the Palmer House lobby or the atriums in Marshall Field's-are to be protected, they have to be listed specifically. Other parts of the buildings are considered "noncontributing." Landowners, after a commission review, are generally free to renovate or remove them. In landmark districts, where buildings are protected as a group, entire buildings deemed to be without historic or architectural merit can be designated noncontributing.

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/champlain72s.jpg

The first major issue surrounding the Wabash Avenue project is whether the proposed alterations destroy the features that made the buildings landmark quality. The plan is for the fourth and fifth floors of the facade to front a parking deck, leaving the kind of "blind" windows that make preservationists cringe. But the first floors, now a jumble of unfortunate alterations, would be restored to their historic state and the space behind them returned to retail use. More importantly, behind the second- and third- floor windows would be new classrooms and offices for the School of the Art Institute, which would be linked to the school's Champlain Building to the south; the architects would also restore that building's storefronts, now a dowdy mix of glass and dulled metal, to their original appearance. The new building would also add squash and handball courts for members of the University Club, to be linked by a bridge over the alley to the club's Gothic 1909 Holabird and Roche building on Michigan Avenue.

On principle, I think preserving just the facades of old buildings is bad, but the facades of these Wabash buildings are their only distinguished feature. Their north and south walls are invisible, alley elevations along south Wabash avenue in Chicagobutting up against the adjacent buildings. The rear elevations are as ugly and inchoate as you'd expect for walls facing a narrow, dark alley. The interiors, changed numerous times down over the decades, have no landmark protection and wouldn't seem to deserve it.

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/20050504alleyfrnorth72.jpg

The second major issue is whether the new project would be out of scale with the other buildings in the landmark district. When he said the proposed tower's height would be three times that of the surrounding buildings, Bahlman was excluding both the 551-foot Pittsfield Building and the 438-foot Willoughby Tower; Mesa's building would be 816 feet high. Bahlman also said the Pittsfield and Willoughby were too "slender" to be intrusive. But Mesa's building would be a marked improvement on recent towers such as the Heritage Millennium, a massive slab of concrete and glass, set on a north-south axis, that looms over the Cultural Center. Mesa's new tower would be faced with a glass curtain wall, and it would be oriented east to west, tapering down to a thinner facade facing Michigan Avenue and thereby creating a slender profile with a lot of blue sky to the north and south of it.

Bahlman was also excluding nearby megatowers such as the 631-foot Heritage Millennium a block to the north, the 600-foot CNA tower a few blocks south, and the 582-foot tall 55 E. Monroe, right across the street. These buildings are in fact outside the landmark district, but this is the kind of blinders-on analysis only a lawyer could love. A great city like Chicago is not an atomized collection of unrelated parts. It's a continuous urban fabric whose strength lies in the way the components draw on and enrich one another. The Michigan Avenue Landmark District - quiet, dowdy, and a bit dilapidated - has exploded with renewed energy since Millennium Park opened across the street. The modernism of Frank Gehry, Jaume Plensa and Anish Kapoor didn't compromise the patrician tone of their older neighbors-it allowed us to see them with a fresh eye.

Wabash presents a tougher challenge. When State Street was King, the east side of Wabash enjoyed the spillover, with vibrant, long-lived attractions such as the Blackhawk Restaurant and Kroch and Brentano's bookstore. Both are long gone. As State Street declined, east Wabash declined harder - there's been a constant churn of The Chicago Loop L elevated structure over Wabash avenueretailers coming and going, with few displaying real staying power. The mass of the L continues to dominate the streetscape. “I was part of a movement many years ago to take down the L,” 42nd ward alderman Burton Natarus reminded hearing attendees, in what seemed a subtle dig at preservationists. “Some people think it is a landmark . . . but what it's done to the street is made it dark, and it has a negative effect, not only from the standpoint of appearance, but from the standpoint of noise. I always thought the L should have been taken down and we would have had some beautiful streets. I think that what this project does is that it livens things up a little bit. It beautifies the area.”

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/20050505under272.jpg

With over 350 units, the Mesa project could help increase pedestrian traffic and make Wabash more attractive for retailers. As for the Wabash L, the best way to neutralize its toxic effects would be to celebrate its status as an undesignated landmark. Pry some cash from the Central Loop TIF, get some architects and lighting designers involved, and come up with a plan to repaint and light up it's undercarriage in a way that not only eliminates the darkness from the avenue beneath, but makes an attraction of the beautiful intricacy of the structure, itself.

The permit-review committee's decision comes before the Chicago Plan Commission on May 19 and the full landmarks commission in June; the final decision will eventually be made by the City Council, giving opponents plenty of time to organize. There will be a lot more discussion of slippery slopes, and rightly so - the last thing anyone wants to do is set a precedent that starts demolition-hungry lawyers salivating. But the continued vitality of Chicago architecture depends on regular injections of the contemporary into the traditional - and on preservation efforts that don't descend into a kind of architectural taxidermy

lynnbecker@lynnbecker.com

What Do People Say at a Landmarks Hearing?
-by Lynn Becker

Excerpts from the May 5th Chicago Landmarks Commission Permit Review Hearing on the demolition of all but the facades of four loft buildings in Chicago's landmark Jeweler's Row District to allow for the construction of a new 72 story condo tower.


Slicing and Dicing
the Past to Get to the Future
What Do People Say
At a Landmarks Hearing?
- read the transcript




Alderman Burton Natarus of the 42nd ward, in which the proposed development would be located:

I know that there's a great deal of controversy concerning this review, especially in the light of the fact that there is being, going to be some restoration and a lot of changes. I am hopeful that the permit review committee with their expertise will be able to restore these conditions in terms of the standards that should be in place. I think that this is an important project from an altogether different point of view than just landscaping, and that is it will help Wabash avenue.

I don't know if you noticed or not, I was part of a movement many years ago to take down the L. I always thought the L should have been taken down and we would have had some beautiful streets. It was part of what we called the Franklin Street connector. We lost that battle with the federal government . . . But we could have done it, and we didn't. We were going to build a third level of the subway .

And so we have the L, which some people think is a landmark, and some people could be beautified, but what it's done to the street is made it dark, and it has a negative effect, not only from the standpoint of appearance, but from the standpoint of noise, and I think that what this project does is that it livens things up a little bit. It beautifies the area. It may bring a lot of people to Wabash to do business. And the reason I suppose that we have the height of the building, is that you've got to build a building tall to get away from the environment of the L.

Now everybody's concerned about Jewelers' Row, and I know that the architecture of Jewelers Row is important but there was another facet of Jewelers Row that no one seems to talk about, and that is Alicia Berg, the former Commissioner and I, when they were going to be rehabilitating the buildings and evicting people on Wabash Avenue. We called a meeting in the Palmer House of all the jewelers. And we got them all together, and the reason this Jewelers Row is because we persuaded all of them to stay, so it would be like a Jewelers Market, a jewelers craft area, so all of the jewelers would be in one spot, and then when you took your wife, you know, and looked for a wedding ring, you went to 20 places and got the best deal on the diamond.

But that was another purpose of the Jewelers Row, it wasn't just architecture. It was an economic, artisan, type concept. And so there's going to be a lot of criticism here from people who are the landmark motif or philosophy, I would imagine, but I would think we have to think of it in terms of not only landmarking, but I think we have to think of it in terms of restoring the street, and I think that's what it does.

And as far as the work that Art Institute is concerned, I'm certain that everyone has the faith in the Art Institute of Chicago to do the right thing in terms of remodeling or refacing or what have you. So I support the project. I think it will be good, and I'm trustworthy of this review committee and Brian Goecken [of Landmark Comission staff] and his staff to police this thing so that it's done right. After all, with all due respect, the landmark people were responsible for the rebuilding of the McGraw Hill building. That was very interesting, where they took apart a building entirely and they put it back together and through their policing efforts you have to have confidence in their ability to rebuild and restore various architecture features.

Oh, one other thing, one other thing. We have a big struggle throughout the city of Chicago as to where to build highrise buildings. If you talk to most of the people out in the neighborhoods, they don't want any high-rise buildings, at all. And we have to have high-rise buildings, because whether we know it or not, highrise buildings are very much responsible for our tax base, and so someone will say to me that's an artisan, why is it always money? Why do you always talk about money? The point of the matter is what we don't have very much in the way of revenue sources. Most of our income tax, if not all of our income tax dollars go to Washington, to pay for national defense and national safety, what have you, and so the property tax remains the major source of revenue that we control in terms of how we can spend remodeling the infrastructure and pay for our police department and our fire department, and what have you. This building will do that. This building will enhance our tax base.

And also, if you looked at that view from Lake Michigan, it's beautiful. If you're out on a boat and you look at Lake Michigan, and you look at the Chicago skyline, one of the first things that hits you is our beautiful skyline in terms of our highrise buildings, I don't care if you're out on the Lake, you're coming in from the South, in Indiana, or you're coming in from O'Hare field, the Chicago presence in terms of high-rise buildings located in the central city is a very, very outstanding feature. Finally, these high-rise buildings will be a source of residents coming down and living in the Loop, and the people want to live in the Loop now. They want the amenities of the parks, and the services, and what have you, and those are the people who are going to living in this highrise buildings, so it makes a very, very unique, a beautiful society.


David Bahlman, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

This has been a very important issue for us. We actually put Jewelers Row as a district on our list of Ten Most Endangered list this year. Our position on this project has been presented in two letters and a detailed analysis that we sent to the Chicago Department of Planning and Development on January 14th and February 2nd.

As a brief summary of those comments, we would like to make the following points. Only a small fraction of Chicago's Central Area , just 1.6% of the land area, is protected by protected by Chicago landmark district designation. Within the historic Loop area, the area we're talking about here, that area of percentage is less than 10%. .

The Jewelers Row district, which was designated by the City Council in 2003, is one of those very few protected areas. According to the city ordinance designating it as a local landmark, this district displays a distinct visual unity based on consistent building setbacks, overall design, use of building material and detailing, and in many cases, size and scale. Furthermore, the Chicago Central Area Plan, which was also adopted two years ago, strongly encourages preservation and re-use of as one of its principal development recommendations for the East Loop. To quote from this plan, “renovations and new development in the East Loop must respect its historic character and urban fabric.” The landmarks Commission's own rules and regulations state that new construction in a landmark district must respect the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the district.

We therefore find it difficult to imagine how a 72 story building can be considered respectful of the urban fabric of an historic, especially when all but one of the tallest structures in this district are less than 280 feet high, or about one third the height of the proposed condo tower. The Pittsfield Building setback tower is, I think between 400 and 500 feet.

We can find no instance in Chicago or the U.S. where a new building has been permitted to be constructed in a local landmark district that is so completely out of scale with the heights of the surrounding historic structures. Our research includes discussion with the Historic Districts Council in New York City, and staff planners in Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, all communities where landmark districts are located in high-rise zoning districts. On a much smaller scale, we would also like to also note our concerns about the proposed curb cut on Wabash Avenue, which we feel does not respect the historic character of the pedestrian oriented district, and of the Louis Sullivan design building which is an individual Chicago landmark immediately adjacent.

Finally, and perhaps most important from the standpoint of official city policy, and this is really where this got listed in our ten most, we are especially concerned about the precedent that this project would have on other landmark districts in Chicago. As you know, one of the reasons why property owners have supported the creation of landmark districts is the protection it provides against demolition and incompatible new development. If approved, this project will send a clear message that zoning, not landmark criteria, is the only thing that matters in a Chicago landmark district. This would be shocking news for owners in Chicago's other historic landmark districts, which are located in higher-density zoning districts, including Astor Street, East Lake Shore Drive, Motor Row, Printers Row, Washington Square, and historic Michigan Boulevard District. It would also send a similar message, though to a lesser extent, to the city's dozens of residential landmark districts from Longwood Drive, and Kenwood on the south, to Jackson Boulevard and Wicker park on the West Side.

We strongly urge your committee to vote to either deny this project, or to defer a decision until the policy implications of your decision can be discussed by representatives of the city's many other Chicago landmark districts. We see this as a real slippery slope. We have no objections to the quality and the design of the building. It simply is it's placement in the middle of an historic district where the prevailing height is only about 280 feet. So we're going from 280 feet, to 800 feet.

Jonathan Fine, President, Preservation Chicago.

I'm here representing my board today. Preservation Chicago cannot support this proposal, and contrary to Alderman Natarus's presumptions, we're actually objecting on the basis of process. I found out yesterday that the reason I had not seen the drawings, and I consider myself relatively well read - I read both papers cover to cover every day - the reason I was not aware of what the design looked like is that the design has not yet been publicly released.

It has been shopped to different interest groups, and it was shopped to our organization last night, and I really appreciate you guys coming by to show us the concept, but the issue really is, why is this being rushed?

The interesting thing about is that the Trump Tower, which was not in a landmark district, which did not involve the facadectomy's or the demolition of a historic building, that process was done completely open, and has the luxury of public scrutiny for months and months and months. Yet this project, which is in a historic district, which does abut a designated Chicago landmark, by one of the finest architecture firms in the entire country that was practicing in that time, somehow this project is being fast-tracked. That disturbs me to no end. What we would recommend is that the Landmarks Commission defer this until at least next month, so there can be more public scrutiny, so this process can be the transparent process that it was designed to be. Mr. Bahlman talks about the slippery slope. I believe the slippery slope here is that when one makes, when one acts in haste, one tends to make waste.


Laura Jones, Associate Director, Greater State Street Council.

I'm Laura Jones, I'm representing the newly merged Greater State Street Council and Central Michigan Avenue Association, as well as the State Street Commission. Those three entities have a redevelopment committee, which has reviewed this project, and they've written a letter of endorsement to Commissioner Casalino which I believe is contained in your packets. I wish to reiterate part of that letter - I will not read that whole letter, that our committee applauds the manner in which Mesa is contributing to the Loop neighborhood. The residents of the 340 new units in the proposed structure will bring more 24/7 activity and life to the area, and Mesa is bringing solutions to problems that local businesses and institutions have wrestled with for years. The School of the Art Institute will finally be able to have an arrival center and the use of a dock. The University Club will be able to expand and add a squash court to its amenities and attract more members. And operations for these buildings, including trash removal will be consolidated, making that alley more functional. We have also had input from Chicago Architecture Foundation and they concurred that Mesa Development's project provides a stunning addition to the Chicago skyline. The height and density of the building will add interest and balance to the other planned developments such as Trump Tower, while preserving while preserving Wabash Avenue's historic facades and street level character. Both the nearby 55 East Monroe and the CNA building would appear less squat and monolithic next to such a structure. We are pleased to endorse Mesa's development


Bob O'Neill, President, Grant Park Advisory Council.

We supported the historic Michigan Boulevard Historic District, and a lot of other preservation projects. This project is, I think, an incredibly well though out compromise to a lot of restrictions that have been put on development downtown and a lot of those in regard to historic districts. In this case, we have the facades of the buildings, which are pretty much obliterated in their current condition. I've photographed them. The area is definitely blighted on Wabash. Those will be restored by a developer who has a strong track record of doing so just to the north at Randolph and Wabash, Not only that, but there is I believe absolutely no contradiction is having a tall, beautiful slender, elegant modern building juxtaposed near and next to historic buildings.

I think there's a precedent for that. Comparing it to Millennium Park, does it elegantly with the historic Chicago Cultural Center right in front of this - it's very visible from Grant Park and Millennium Park. Another precedent is the Hancock Tower, right across the street , Michigan Avenue , from the Fourth Presbyterian Church, and another beautiful contrast does very well. And the Hancock Tower, what it has down for North Michigan Avenue, these type of buildings will do the same for the downtown area. I think that they're incredibly important to Grant Park as well. What we have seen over the years is that more and more people move to downtown Chicago, the park is rejuvenated, it's integrated into the community, has become a Grant Park community. A lot of people want to live downtown . This affords them that opportunity, beautiful views.

I think it's a really good compromise. I think that from a historic preservation standpoint, this is a win-win situation. If we don't encourage this type of redevelopment, how are we going to finance the restoration of these historic buildings. The ones we're currently talking about have been dilapidated for decades. There are a lot of other Class C buildings downtown, office buildings, that are being renovated into condos, that have to be financed, and one of the ways you do it is connecting highrises, and encouraging more and more development downtown. Chicago is a world class city. It's becoming more so, and we need people downtown. We need them living downtown, supporting the culture downtown, the restaurants . . .

Another issue that doesn't get talked about two often with high-rises is it's very important, the environmental impact of them. The high-rise is incredibly good land use. It prevents suburban sprawl. It makes it an irresistible alternative to building out in the suburbs and far-reaching areas, rather than to live in these high-rises are within walking distance of just about anything you would need on a regular basis, or a cab ride, public transportation or biking. And I think that we really need to encourage it, and this particular project takes all of that into account and I think it addresses it very well.

And the other issue is, we like to see from Grant Park, the framing of the park, and the high-rises are very beautiful. I think when they are very tall, they're more visible, and this is another reason why we support it.


John George, attorney for Mesa Development, LLC

The only point I'd like to make is, in response to Mr. Fine's comments concerning the timing of this, this was filed, this application for a planned development was filed in November of 2004. We had met with the Department of Planning before we filed it, and since that time, we've had numerous meetings with the Department of Planning staff, with various people in the community who have asked to see this project. In addition to that, we've met with the Department of Transportation, the Mayor's office for People with Disabilities, so we have had - we're now in May, and we started back in November. We filed it in November, so this is not on a fast-track. This is a normal-track event, which has gone through all the processes that are required by the City of Chicago Department of Planning.


Leslie Sturino, South Loop Neighbors

I've heard a lot of things here that we support completely. We actually are downtown residents, and do take advantage of all the wonderful downtown area has to offer, but in our area, we have two other historic districts. One at Printers Row, and one at South Michigan Avenue. The two things that concern us, and its outline in the letter that hopefully we have in your packet, is the process, which all due respect to the excellent work that has been done by the developer. We are just hearing about this, this week. We believe that, especially when it comes to the public trust that is vested with the protection of historic landmark districts, that a certain amount of publicity and broad participation is necessary to really get everybody behind what's the broader goals of this very vital project, that is bringing people downtown, revitalizing what is in the historic district now.

We can't comment on the architectural merits of it, because we haven't seen it. We can comment, though, that we believe that unless this is designated by the City Council as a similar case to Bush vs. Gore, it could set a precedent that we would not like to see implementing similarly in either Printers Row or South Michigan Avenue, that is while we're the city of broad shoulders, we're literally building towers on top of our historic buildings. So we'd like to understand a little bit more about what that sets as a precedent, what the policy implications are, and I would echo another person's comment in this room that we respectfully ask that maybe this could be deferred a month, so that others who may not have had a chance to hear the merits of this proposal might have a chance to do so and get behind it.


Dennis McClendon, Friends of Downtown

I'm here on behalf of Friends of Downtown, a citizen based advocacy group that advocates for good planning downtown. We found out about this yesterday morning, and are a little upset about the process, but more about the precedent that would be set. We had a lot a talk today about what a wonderful place as a residential district downtown Chicago is. I certainly concur. I live downtown, myself, but it's being falsely set up as somehow in opposition to Chicago's wonderful heritage of architectural treasures that are presumably one of the reasons that so many of us want to live downtown to begin with. The folks at LPCI have already pointed out - I've prepared a map that shows what a tiny proportion of downtown Chicago is actually protected by landmark designation. The percentage when you look at the entire central area is about 1.6%.

There's no need for us to force new residential development on top of these few districts that we thought had been protected by this Commission and this Commission's own regulations that say that nothing that's out of , wildly out of height, would be approved in those districts. So I'm not sure if my letter setting this out in a little bit more detail reached the Commission in time to be included in the packets. I have a copy with me, and also copies of the map. But we believe that allowing a building three times the size of other buildings in the district sets a very dangerous precedent that we hope this committee will reject.


Craig Norris

I live in the Wicker Park neighborhood. Because of a neighborhood issue eight months ago, I jumped on the internet, and I read the Penn Central case, and the St. Bartholemew case, and when this came up, it dawned on me that these facts are remarkably similar. I think that what Mr. Bahlman is saying is true, and I think the city leadership is badly underestimating the people who are able to gather this information, and make these comparisons, and I think we might be making a mistake by compromising the integrity of this district, and I think that the general population, it might quickly be able to see that, if not immediately, than maybe down the road.


Martin Tangora

I'm Martin Tangora, of course long associated with LPCI, but I'm not speaking for LPCI. I don't want to be as polite as they were. The question before you is whether a landmark district means anything, and this case, Mr. Goecken has just argued that id doesn't, because this is a unique district where there are no criteria. There is supposed to be a 40% criterion [note: refers to a provision of the landmarks law that requires proposed changes that entail demolition of 40% or more of a designated landmarks to receive special approval from the Chicago City Council] , and I can't imagine how you believe that's not violated when the setback for the new construction is less than 30 feet.

I've seen these plans. Windows will be blinded in contributing buildings in the district to accommodate parking. A parking garage of 12 stories will be built behind the Sullivan and Holabird & Roche Gage Group which is an officially designated Chicago landmark. Louis Sullivan is the most important architect in central Chicago - I think everyone takes that for granted - and, of course, his two most important buildings here are the Auditorium and Carson's , and the two next most important buildings are the two between which this 800 foot tower will be shoehorned. On this, we will have 450 cars going into a driveway that's adjacent to his designated Jewelers building, and then the parking garage will be towering over the Gage Group - not literally the Sullivan part of the Gage Group, but the other two parts of the Gage Group are only six stories high, so this is not only in a landmark district and towering over the other Michigan streetwall district, but it's right in the heart of the most important architecture in downtown Chicago.

. . . . and then the height issue. Mr. Goecken says he's not worried about 70 story buildings in Beverly. Of course not. What I would be worried about, if this goes through, is the precedent that would allow somebody to tear down the average size house in Beverly and build an enormous house. How can you turn him down? I'm worried about the millionaires that have been coming to you for 25 years with a cottage in Old Town asking to put 5,000 square feet on top and in back - how are you going to turn them down? How are you going to tell the owners of 20 North Michigan, an eight story building that's one of the oldest in the street wall - how are you going to tell them that they can't building a 70 story tower on the back all-but-30-feet of that lot? How are you going to stop anything on the street wall or in the Jewelers Row district or any other district in Chicago if you allow this to go through? .


lynnbecker@lynnbecker.com

ARCHITECTURE
The lofty stakes of putting high-rises in historic districts
Building in landmark areas presents far-reaching issues

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published May 15, 2005

There is give and take in life, and there is give and take in building cities. You hope each project gives more to the cityscape than it takes. That is why the controversial plan for a 74-story, 822-foot luxury condo tower on South Wabash Avenue is so difficult to weigh. It promises to be a distinguished addition to the skyline. Yet it also sets a dangerous precedent, one which could open the door to ungainly skyscrapers shoehorned into downtown historic districts.

The plan got a crucial go-ahead from the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on May 4 and is expected to come before the Chicago Plan Commission on Thursday. It has been designed by Chicago architects Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates for Mesa Development. The same firms are behind the handsome Heritage at Millennium Park, a Wabash Avenue condo tower where Mayor Richard M. Daley plans to move. There are other Daley connections. The developers have hired the law firm Daley & George, whose lead partner Michael is the mayor's brother. Perhaps as a result, the deal is speeding toward approval.

That's too bad because there are some far-reaching issues to deal with, especially whether a tower of such height should be permitted in a landmark district. The landmark commission's own rules state that new construction in such a district must respect its "general size, shape, and scale." Yet this tower would be more than 500 feet taller than all but one of the buildings in the Jewelers Row Historic District, a corridor along Wabash that recognizes the rich history of Chicago's jewelry makers. The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, an advocacy group, is understandably frightened by the pattern this deal would set. And the city's behavior -- as opposed to its soothing words -- can only deepen the council's anxiety.

Typically, when preservationists object to a building's height, the city will knock a few stories off in an attempt to mollify them. Not this time. Since February, when news stories about the project surfaced, the tower grew more than 25 feet taller. Why? Because city planners encouraged the developers to add a pair of "sky gardens," or indoor parks, in the tower's upper reaches. The "sky gardens" will be available to the condo owners. You wonder when City Hall will have the gumption to prod developers to provide the same amenity for the thousands of office workers who toil in Chicago's high-rises.

Not for public consumption

I sat in the front row at last week's landmarks commission hearing, a detail I mention because, even from that vantage point, it was impossible to see drawings of the tower. They were turned away from the audience and toward landmark commissioners who sat at a conference table. Only a visit to the architects revealed the tower's contours.

The design calls for a wedge-shaped, glass-sheathed high-rise that would turn its narrow side toward Grant Park. It would be attached to three buildings that date from the post-Chicago Fire construction boom and extend from 21 to 29 S. Wabash. Roughly their front 30 feet would be preserved, including their now-scruffy Victorian, neo-classical and Chicago School facades. Their backs would be demolished. 21 S. Wabash would house the entrance to the condo complex's 12-story-tall parking garage.

The tower itself would rise immediately to the east of the three buildings, sandwiched between them and an extremely narrow alley. In every other direction, the surroundings are extraordinary. At 19 S. Wabash is the Jewelers Building of 1882, a tattered but richly ornamented structure that is the oldest surviving design of Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan. East of the alley, at 18, 24 and 30 S. Michigan Ave., stands the Gage Group, the great trio of steel-frame loft buildings by Holabird & Roche, with a dazzling facade (at 18 S. Michigan) by Sullivan.

This context is made even more special by the everyday sights and sounds of Wabash: the exposed steel of the elevated tracks, the roar of the elevated trains and the rainbow of ethnic and economic groups that parade down the sidewalks. There are no median planters here. This part of Chicago hasn't been gentrified or "Daley-ized."

One has to ask: Is this the right place for luxury condominiums? You half-wonder if the residents, following the lead of Yuppies who move into apartments alongside factories, will someday urge that the "L" come down because it makes too much noise. There is also the troubling question of scale: Even though it will be set back from Wabash, the tower could loom oppressively above the street.

Curbed enthusiasm

Of equal concern: the prospect of a driveway, or curb cut, on Wabash to serve the tower's parking garage. Not only would this mundane feature be a poor neighbor for Adler & Sullivan's Jewelers Building. It also threatens to disrupt the flow of pedestrians on Wabash's sidewalks. This curb cut may be necessary because the alley in back of the three buildings is so congested. But more curb cuts along Wabash will surely deaden the now-lively streetscape.

Still, only a fool would ignore the benefits this project promises: More density to promote a "24-hour downtown," a bigger property tax base and new facilities for the School of the Art Institute, which will sell the three historic buildings but get space of its own in the complex. And the design, by John Leahy and Gary Klompmaker of Solomon, Cordwell Buenz, is promising on many counts.

The planned renovation of the older buildings is better than a "facade-echtomy" that saves only a building's skin. The parking garage podium underneath the tower would form a sensitive backdrop for the Gage Group, its east-facing side an attractive composition of aluminum panels and bands of windows.

The tower smartly avoids the trap of mimicking the historic buildings on Wabash and Michigan in a facile attempt to "fit in." It is far more appropriate, as the architects suggest, to contrast new with old. Wrapped in a taut glass skin, their building could float above the skyline, recalling the subtle abstract statement made by Boston's John Hancock Tower. Nothing could be more different from 55 E. Monroe, the modernist behemoth that rises like a tombstone behind the cliff of historic masonry buildings along Michigan.

While it is true that this skyscraper would be very tall, the point is that it would be elegant and tall -- which is infinitely preferable to short and stumpy. A tower of 500 or 600 feet might sound less threatening, but it would, in reality, be far more massive, extending the wall-like presence of 55 E. Monroe rather than turning it into a foil for a gracefully narrow skyscraper.

A green giant

The chief architectural caveat is the building's glass skin, which appears to be a light blue-green in the architects' renderings. If it winds up looking too green, the Chicago skyline will be marred by a giant asparagus stalk.

The chief urban caveat is the way this project tramples on the city's standards for historic districts, though city officials dispute that view. Jewelers Row is a special case, they say -- not an isolated neighborhood district where all you see is graystones or bungalows. The perspective from City Hall is that this is a downtown district where skyscrapers are always coming into view, so adding this one will not seriously disturb it.

Yet it's not hard to imagine shrewd real estate lawyers citing the same rationale to jam far-less-attractive, out-of-scale towers in other downtown historic districts, such as Printers Row. And how could the city stop them after letting this one go through? Certainly not on aesthetic grounds. That is this tower's disturbing, double-edged sword. Seen as an isolated case, it gives more to the city than it takes. But if you value human-scaled historic districts, the example it sets could wind up taking very much away indeed.

Wow, LOOONG reads.

Short story: I love that tower and any qualms I might have before (I had epsilon qualms, for you math dorks, or very little) have been cleared away.

I think the article makes many great points. One thing that I like is that the fronts of the buildings (30 feet) are being preserved, rather than just the facades. Therefore there will at least be some depth to what is preserved.

I don't know that I really care about there being any depth. It's not the glazing that makes an old structure important, it's the arrangement of those windows within the larger structure and the detailing of the structure itself. I could honestly care less if I can see through the windows or not.

Where do they ever support the idea that Wabash Ave. or the so-called "Jewlers Row" are historic? Those blocks are now and always were a rather uninteresting and unsightly hodge-podge of trivial structures lacking in any significant architectural presence. The jewelers left along with the Blackhawk restaurant and dozens of other small run-of-the-mill commercial venues, and they left for sound commercial reasons. I'll wager that none of those who abandoned Wabash Ave. had any sense of a historic loss or that there were part of anything of historic significance. They plied their trades and passed on. Facadectomies pay homage to misplaced nostalgia, nothing more. Cities, like architecture itself, are new poems in the making. Let's enjoy our time under the sun, and let the future anguish over what we built. :wallbash:

This is just a repost reminder of tonights events.

Parkitecture 2005


Grant Park Advisory Council
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Daley Bicentennial Plaza, 337 E. Randolph (Grant Park's Fieldhouse)

THERE is currently a trio of high-profile, residential high-rise projects being planned facing Michigan Avenue but not directly on it. The 72-story high-rise planned for 21-29 S Wabash, the 830 S Michigan Avenue high-rise (planned for behind the YWCA Building), and the Fourth Presbyterian Church high-rise are generating both much praise and criticism. Given the cultural, economic and environmental virtues of downtown high-rise living with all its resultant energy and active street life, why the controversy? This question and others will be addressed in our continuing Parkitecture series.

The community surrounding Grant Park is a world-class community with many new residents energizing both the park and the city. The dream of making Chicago's downtown a 24-hour, 7-days-per-week community is quickly becoming a reality. We are seeing things never seen before around Grant Park. People are walking at all hours and on weekends along South Michigan Avenue, quality restaurants and retail establishments are moving in, there are more parents with young children, and dogs are being walked in many areas of Grant Park - all positive signs that there is a vibrant and significant Grant Park residential community taking hold. Grant Park with its much-improved beauty, nature, maintenance and culture is a very important catalyst to creating this vibrant community.

Please join us and our distinguished panel for this important discussion. The panel will include:

Jack Guthman, Partner, Shefsky & Froelich.

John Lahey, President, Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates.

Thomas Kerwin, President, AIA Chicago and Partner, Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

James Peters, Director of Preservation Planning, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

Thank you for your participation,

Bob O’Neill

Phone: 312-829-8015
Fax: 312-243-4095


I'll probably be attending the meeting. Steely and I attended one of these meetings last year and it was very interesting. If anybody else is interested, let me know so we can meet there.

Stupid paper due tonight that I only found out about yesterday.

Can someone give an update on how the meeting went?

Hrmm... if I were to only attend one (either tonight's or Thursday's City Hall meeting), which one would you do Butler?

Where do they ever support the idea that Wabash Ave. or the so-called "Jewlers Row" are historic? Those blocks are now and always were a rather uninteresting and unsightly hodge-podge of trivial structures lacking in any significant architectural presence. The jewelers left along with the Blackhawk restaurant and dozens of other small run-of-the-mill commercial venues, and they left for sound commercial reasons. I'll wager that none of those who abandoned Wabash Ave. had any sense of a historic loss or that there were part of anything of historic significance. They plied their trades and passed on. Facadectomies pay homage to misplaced nostalgia, nothing more. Cities, like architecture itself, are new poems in the making. Let's enjoy our time under the sun, and let the future anguish over what we built. :wallbash:

I have to dissagree with ya Frumie...

Wabash Ave is not about just the individual non descript buildings, but a collection of buildings that on a whole make for a unique urban space that was once so prevelant in the Loop, and is now all but gone. With the exception of a few historic 19th century buildings, you are correct in that there are several bland buildings that indivually do not contribute much. But, together they create a street space that gives us a hint of what life was like in the Loop 50, 75, or 100+ years ago. Not something that can be re-created. While there are other areas in the Loop that also posess a fine collection of nice and bland old buildings, no area has it in quite the scale which still exists on Wabash. Wabash has a feel like no other place in Chicago. It is near the top of my list of favorite urban spaces. I would be deeply saddened if any more of that character was destroyed.

I am not a fan of the Facadectomy, but if done right, it does work. When you stand on the sidewalk in front of where the Heritage is standing you have no idea that a 57 story building is above you. They did a great job of maintaining the feel of the facades from more than a century ago. (I will admit that I can't wait until they get a bit dirty as they look way too clean right now, but that will happen.) The facades on the block of Jewelers Row are not that spectacular, but next door to them is Sullivan's oldest existing design, and it would look completely wrong to have it standing next to a modern 72 story structure on Wabash. (That doesn't mean that you can't build modern next to old, but in this context, it wouldn't work.) At the same time the upper floors of those older buildings is and has been vacant for years, why not use the space to hide a parking garage?

Anybody who knows me, knows that I am all about new and modern, but I have also learned to have a healthy respect for our past, and recognize that while it is imperative to move forward, it is also imperative to not forget the past.

Just my thoughts...

Well,the meeting seemed to go quite well. There was really noone at the meeting who specifically was against the tower. It was a great panel. I was able to get a high resolution of the building earlier today, that I will post as soon as it gets posted on Emporis, I'm having troumbe uploading it. But anyway I was able to voice my opinion and speak in favor of this project and say that people need to focus more on the asthetics of buildings rather than density. Shawn stole my line and got a standing fucking and he's going to get the wrath of Victor. For the most part there was positive support for this tower, even the preservationist had to admit that the building was sleek and elegant. I'm sure that the other forum members that were in attendance will add to this. Shawn, Tom, Marvel, Dan, Steely, 2PruRocks and myself were there as forum representatives.

Jewelers Row tower sets unwelcome precedent

May 18, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST



It will be 73 stories, some 776 feet tall, and will arise from the Jewelers Row historic district in the middle of downtown. And if you think it's a bit much, your big chance to be heard will be Thursday's meeting of the Chicago Plan Commission, which convenes at 1 p.m. at City Hall.

The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois has raised the possibility of a lawsuit if the project is approved. But that's been the only public expression of opposition thus far to a plan that changes the character of Wabash Avenue. The proposal by an investment team close to Mayor Daley calls for placing the condo tower behind buildings at 21-39 S. Wabash that date from the construction boom following the 1871 fire.

It's far taller than the neighboring office giants and would add a driveway to a lively pedestrian street. The design by architecture firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates is attractive enough, but I'm concerned about the precedent. "I don't understand why we set up these historic districts, then ignore the guidelines that protect them,'' said David Bahlman, president of the landmarks group.

Deputy planning commissioner Brian Goeken said the building merits approval because it preserves the low-rise buildings. And he said the Jewelers Row district is based on the traditional uses of the buildings, not their height.

But that's a distinction that will be lost when future developers use this as a textbook study for how to get their way in a landmark district.

The deal has been cut and is probably unstoppable. But criticism from a few more Chicagoans would serve notice that it won't be so easy next time.

I have to dissagree with ya Frumie...

Wabash Ave is not about just the individual non descript buildings, but a collection of buildings that on a whole make for a unique urban space that was once so prevelant in the Loop, and is now all but gone. With the exception of a few historic 19th century buildings, you are correct in that there are several bland buildings that indivually do not contribute much. But, together they create a street space that gives us a hint of what life was like in the Loop 50, 75, or 100+ years ago. Not something that can be re-created. While there are other areas in the Loop that also posess a fine collection of nice and bland old buildings, no area has it in quite the scale which still exists on Wabash. Wabash has a feel like no other place in Chicago. It is near the top of my list of favorite urban spaces. I would be deeply saddened if any more of that character was destroyed.

I am not a fan of the Facadectomy, but if done right, it does work. When you stand on the sidewalk in front of where the Heritage is standing you have no idea that a 57 story building is above you. They did a great job of maintaining the feel of the facades from more than a century ago. (I will admit that I can't wait until they get a bit dirty as they look way too clean right now, but that will happen.) The facades on the block of Jewelers Row are not that spectacular, but next door to them is Sullivan's oldest existing design, and it would look completely wrong to have it standing next to a modern 72 story structure on Wabash. (That doesn't mean that you can't build modern next to old, but in this context, it wouldn't work.) At the same time the upper floors of those older buildings is and has been vacant for years, why not use the space to hide a parking garage?

Just my thoughts...

I believe you articulate what the preservations mean by "historic", namely, "old" and "our own." Differently expressed: "our roots." Fair enough. I had felt that much time and recent developments had cut deeply into the fabric of Wabash Ave, despoiling most of its character. You have the advantage over me of having actually walked that cityscape recently. While I espouse the principle of "honesty in architecture," I have also to concede these 8-storey garages, presently forming the base of most new structures, are solely in need of some cosmetic treatment. In this case, then, should facadeism preserve the older "charm," I can live with that. We'll have to wait to see if it works and how much "life" returns to Wabash Ave. Thanks for your thoughts.

Well,the meeting seemed to go quite well. There was really noone at the meeting who specifically was against the tower. The other forum members that were in attendance will add to this. Shawn, Tom, Marvel, Dan, Steely, 2PruRocks and myself were there as forum representatives.

Nice work gentlemen. :bowtie:

David Roeder is an idiot. First of all, how is this a precedent when the Heritage did the very same thing a few years ago (rather successfully I might add)? Secondly, it's been discussed time and again that it is the facades, and only the facades, of these buildings that warrant saving. The rest of the structures are completely unremarkable. A million people have said it before and I'll say it again - there is nothing wrong with facadectomy (a term that I am growing to rather enjoy).

My only concern with the project is the mention of the "driveway" in Roeder's article - this is the first I've heard of any disconnection in the street's pedestrian environment. We'll have to wait and see just how true this is - and how much of a detriment to Wabash it would become were it implemented.

Plan Commission backs Jewelers Row tower

May 20, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter


A proposal for a 71-story tower within the Jewelers Row landmark district passed a key milestone Thursday when the Chicago Plan Commission endorsed the project.

The commission, which advises the City Council on major building projects, praised the architecture of the building and said the developers will revitalize a haggard section of Wabash. The condominium tower would arise from a base that will incorporate a renovation of three low-rise buildings at 21-39 S. Wabash.

The action came during a busy meeting that reflected developers' expectations of residential growth in Chicago. The commission approved projects that would add nearly 2,400 units to the city.

The largest is a plan for a new development of 1,200 homes at 3201 W. Arthington, part of the former Sears Roebuck & Co. campus on the West Side. Chicago-based Royal Imperial Group plans to convert two former Sears buildings into residential use and add other housing that will include a mix of town houses and rental properties.

Royal Imperial's president, Mordecai Tessler, said he hopes to start marketing the project late this year. He said the roughly $200 million development might take five years to complete.

Other residential projects that secured the commission's support included a thin 26-story building at 110 W. Superior, 240 units at 301 W. Ohio, a 51-story building at 148 E. Ontario, 93 new units at 2559 S. Dearborn and a 19-story building at 1255 S. State.

The Jewelers Row project comes from the same investment team that produced the 57-story Heritage at Millennium Park, which involved renovation of old storefronts at the southeast corner of Randolph and Wabash and is the new home of Mayor Daley.

The team is led by Mesa Development LLC, whose managing member, Richard Hanson, said he expects the $300 million project to take about four years. Hanson said he hopes to start marketing units next year and expects lenders will require that from 35 percent to 50 percent of the 353 dwellings be sold before construction can start.

Most of the units should be priced under $500,000, he said. Jack George, the project's attorney, said the developers will commit $1.3 million to an affordable housing fund as part of the deal with the city.

The project was opposed by representatives of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois and Preservation Chicago. They argued that while the project has many attributes, a building that soars more than 800 feet would detract from the integrity of Jewelers Row.

A member of the commission, Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd), countered that the high-rise refreshes a dilapidated stretch of the Loop and helps Jewelers Row merchants by bringing new customers close by.

The project also had support from leading civic groups, including the Greater State Street Council and the Grant Park Advisory Council.

That is great news! 71 stories!

$300M Condo Tower Planned for Jeweler’s Row
By Mark Ruda (www.globest.com)
Last updated: May 19, 2005 06:45pm

CHICAGO-Rather than defacing the Jeweler’s Row landmark district, a 71-story condominium tower at the southeast corner of Wabash Avenue and Monroe Street will be a “stunning addition” to the East Loop skyline, plan commission members agreed Thursday. Mesa Development’s $300-million, 353-unit project will add 8,500 sf of ground-floor retail space, 41,000 sf for the School of the Art Institute on the next two floors, 460 parking spaces in nine stories of parking and an 18,000-sf athletic club on the 13th and 14th floors.
Mesa Development founder Richard A. Hanson expects to begin construction next year, with completion likely in 2010. However, the project still needs city council approval, and his Monroe/Wabash Development LLC must acquire the four-building property from the Art Institute, which uses some of the space for classrooms, administrative offices and storage. Although Hanson is talking with a syndicate of banks about financing, he expects there likely will be a pre-sale requirement in the 35% to 50% range for his condos, which will average about $400,000. “We have a long way to go yet,” he adds.

Although the 57-story reinforced concrete, aluminum and glass triangular condominium tower will sit atop of the retail space, parking garage, classrooms and athletic club, facades at 21-39 S. Wabash Ave. and 52-64 E. Monroe St. will be preserved. However, opponents criticize the 822-foot height of the new building, as well as nearly 1 million sf of mixed-use space.

“If an 800-foot building can be permitted in an historic district where the prevailing height is less than 300 feet, what keeps that from happening in any other historic district in Chicago?” says David Bahlman, president of the Landmark Preservation Council of Illinois. Adds Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, “We do not condone construction of new buildings on top of historically significant ones…It opens the door to unbridled development in historic districts.”

However, 42nd Ward Alderman Burton Natarus argues Wabash Avenue already is hampered by the Chicago Transit Authority’s elevated tracks above the street, which casts shadows on Jeweler’s Row. “What everybody is forgetting is, this is Wabash Avenue,” Natarus says. “Wabash is a very, very different street because of the El. The El is an absolute shade on the street. This will make Wabash Avenue something to be proud of.”

US Equities Realty president and chief operating officer Nancy A. Pacher, also a member of the plan commission, agrees. Her firm’s office is at 20 N. Michigan Ave., a block from Mesa Development’s latest proposal as well as a block south of its Heritage at Millennium Park condominium tower. “It’s a wonderful part of the Loop, until you get to Wabash,” Pacher says. “It looks dirty, tacky and seedy.”

Hanson is being allowed to build 300,000 sf more than current zoning permits as a result of building setbacks, an environmental “green roof,” 20% of units being accessible to the handicapped and a $1.3-million donation to the city’s affordable housing fund.

A proposal for a 71-story tower within the Jewelers Row landmark district passed a key milestone Thursday when the Chicago Plan Commission endorsed the project.....

The largest is a plan for a new development of 1,200 homes at 3201 W. Arthington, part of the former Sears Roebuck & Co. campus on the West Side. Chicago-based Royal Imperial Group plans to convert two former Sears buildings into residential use and add other housing that will include a mix of town houses and rental properties. Royal Imperial's president, Mordecai Tessler, said he hopes to start marketing the project late this year. He said the roughly $200 million development might take five years to complete....

Other residential projects that secured the commission's support included a thin 26-story building at 110 W. Superior, 240 units at 301 W. Ohio, a 51-story building at 148 E. Ontario, 93 new units at 2559 S. Dearborn and a 19-story building at 1255 S. State.


I can't believe everything's happening to Chicago. God, I love this city!

Yeah, this is really an incredible period for Chicago. By 2008 or 09, We will have an additional 40 plus towers dotting our skyline!

#3. A proposed Residential Business Planned Development application and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection application submitted by Monroe/Wabash Development, LLC for the property commonly known as 21-39 South Wabash Avenue and 52-64 East Monroe Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 71-story mixed use development including 353 dwelling units, 428 parking spaces, and retail and institutional uses. (42nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)
http://img267.echo.cx/img267/6401/p10001423pm.jpg

Monroe-Wabash Tower: 822' 3" (top of wedge) 792' 3" (top of roof 73rd floor) Shawn and myself saw the elevations on the presentation boards.

There are a total of 73 floors if you include the 2 mechanical penthouse floors on top.

$300M Condo Tower Planned for Jeweler’s Row
By Mark Ruda (www.globest.com)
Last updated: May 19, 2005 06:45pm

CHICAGO-Rather than defacing the Jeweler’s Row landmark district, a 71-story condominium tower at the southeast corner of Wabash Avenue and Monroe Street will be a “stunning addition” to the East Loop skyline, plan commission members agreed Thursday. However, 42nd Ward Alderman Burton Natarus argues Wabash Avenue already is hampered by the Chicago Transit Authority’s elevated tracks above the street, which casts shadows on Jeweler’s Row. “What everybody is forgetting is, this is Wabash Avenue,” Natarus says. “Wabash is a very, very different street because of the El. The El is an absolute shade on the street. This will make Wabash Avenue something to be proud of.”

US Equities Realty president and chief operating officer Nancy A. Pacher, also a member of the plan commission, agrees. Her firm’s office is at 20 N. Michigan Ave., a block from Mesa Development’s latest proposal as well as a block south of its Heritage at Millennium Park condominium tower. “It’s a wonderful part of the Loop, until you get to Wabash,” Pacher says. “It looks dirty, tacky and seedy.”

Amen :cheers1:

What? I really like Wabash and all the shade the El casts on it.

Hanson is being allowed to build 300,000 sf more than current zoning permits as a result of building setbacks, an environmental “green roof,” 20% of units being accessible to the handicapped and a $1.3-million donation to the city’s affordable housing fund.

Yay for incentives that work!

IMHO, the el is part of what makes Chicago- well Chicago.... No other city like it, and I love the shadow it casts on Wabash too. I love the fact that the el is 100+ years old and shows its age as well, its character.

A tower this size will do nothing but good for the neighborhood. Lets hope and pray its just the beginning of things to come on Wabash. What a spectacular new area for the loop that would be- along with Grant Park, Michigan Ave, a re-emerging State St, and the new and improved Wabash... All I can say is WOW. Go Chicago!

Those of us who enjoy the noise, both visual and audible, that the El produces are, I think, in the minority. It takes a special breed to understand just what Chicago's downtown rails have meant to the City. Unfortunately, a quick glance at any of the Loop's 4 "track" streets - Wabash, Wells, Lake and Van Buren - would reveal a certain economic depression that any casual observer could identify. As important as the El has always been, and will always be, to the City, the immediate effects of its position over a street are certainly obvious.

I wanted to pass this message along to you guys, I know that it's short notice, but whomever can and wants to attend should...Jim Hanson of Mesa Development sent this message to me



Butler:

Good to hear from you. Thank you for your support of our project. We are extremely excited by this opportunity and can't wait for the opportunity to actually get going.

We have one more public meeting before we go to city council. That is tomorrow (Tuesday 5/24) in the city council chambers at city hall (same as the Plan Commission). This meeting is the Zoning Committee of the City Council (comprised of alderman). It is set to start at 10 am and it is a public meeting. If you and the other students who have shown up at some of the previous meetings could show up at the Zoning Committee meeting to lend your support we would truly appreciate it.

In terms of renderings, etc let me talk to the team and see what we can release. I will try to have some feedback for you on that later this
week.

Regards,

Jim

Bravo BVic, and to all the other Chicago Forumers, well done! You guys are being heard, and being noticed. How freekin awesome is that. I wish I could be a part of this "gang of students" supporting urbanism, and battling the NIMBYS. I cant wait to see what you few guys may have just started. Time will tell, but I believe nothing but good will come of this.....

I am sooooo there. Hope I can find you guys (I don't know what you look like Butler, but, I can spot Shawn from a mile away :))

I am sooooo there. Hope I can find you guys (I don't know what you look like Butler, but, I can spot Shawn from a mile away :))

I'm 5'4", and I have braids in my hair, which should give you a clue to my ethnicity.:) Shawn and I will be together, so you can't miss me...

"how is this a precedent when the Heritage did the very same thing a few years ago"

It differs because the buildings at Randolph (like the old bank at LaSalle/Madison) were not formally designated a landmark. The buildings on Jeweler's Row are city landmarks, though, and they were landmarked for good reason: the lower property values along Wabash made it one of the few remaining parts of the Loop which maintained the pre-WW2 scale of the Loop

And this matters why? Up until now, Chicago Landmark designation was a pretty good sign that the historic scale and character of a neighborhood would be maintained into perpetuity. Facade reconstructions done elsewhere, as with the McGraw-Hill on Michigan Avenue, have maintained the scale of the historic building even in much higher density contexts.

Now, we have no such guarantee: as with non-landmark areas, the (endlessly fungible) zoning will control the scale of development. There is now nothing stopping the owners of ANY of the lower buildings on Michigan Avenue from doing exactly the same thing; there are eight story buildings fronting Grant Park.

Currently, a pedestrian walking along the west side of Michigan or leaving the Art Institute experiences the same relatively intimate scale of construction that someone arriving in the city in the 1920s would have ("Road to Perdition" has a great scene of this); they see the same ensemble of buildings that millions saw in TV coverage of the 1968 riots. The Michigan Avenue streetwall is one of Chicago's treasures, and now its scale--already compromised by large buildings like CNA and 55 E Monroe--could be lost altogether.

Many other Chicago Landmark districts and buildings, besides the Michigan streetwall, are smaller than existing zoning allows: Motor Row, Prairie Avenue, Old Town Triangle, Printer's Row, the Rookery, the Chicago Theater, the Chicago Cultural Center, even City Hall. This tower is quite beautiful, but now we cannot legitimately tell someone "no, you can't tear down an Old Town cottage [leaving the front facade] to build a cinder-block palace three times as tall as your neighbors." We can't tell the owners of the Rookery or the Santa Fe buildings that they can't rip out their stunning light courts and slide 80-story buildings right in. (Chicago's landmark ordinance, unlike New York's, does not protect building interiors.)

Some more points to consider:
- The tower will cast shadows upon two Louis Sullivan landmarks (the Gage Building and the Jewelers' Building) and the Crown Fountain. The parking garage will be plainly visible from Millennium Park, towering over the Gage Group.

- The current condition of the buildings has nothing to do with their actual utility. The Art Institute (the owner) has been sitting on them for a while, looking for an opportunity to sell them to a developer. Why invest in them when you could sit tight for a few months/years and cash out instead?

- There is NOT a bottomless market for development. Really. I'm certainly in favor of increased density and activity, but we should remember that overdevelopment in one location can lead to underdevelopment in another, and deeper boom/bust cycles. There are still vacant buildings nearby to reuse: CNA Plaza is a third empty, 59 E Van Buren sits completely empty, and vacant lots are as close by as Randolph or Van Buren and Wabash (not to mention the 20,000 vacant lots elsewhere in the city!). There's no need to make zombies out of not only serviceable, but beautiful, buildings in the name of "progress."

- Wall to wall high rises fronting the lake is actually not the best idea. What other cities have understood is that it's actually best to have the highest buildings set back further from the water; that way, buildings right at the edge don't block the views for other people. Cities like Vancouver, Toronto, and San Francisco are very careful about making sure that new high-rises don't block off views for other residents; we can plan carefully so that we can share our views, rather than have a few people monopolize them. (Imagine how much more lively Broadway in Edgewater would be if it was zoned for high-rises while Sheridan was zoned for mid-rises--to give just one example.)

- There are also other ways to mix development and historic preservation. In other cities, like NYC and LA, "transferable development rights" allow the owners of landmark buildings to sell the phantom "development rights" (the buildings that they could build, if they illegally tore down their building) to the owners of nearby, non-landmark sites. Thus, the small buildings around South Street Seaport in Manhattan, or the historic Central Library in Los Angeles, sold off their development rights--and developers of neighboring buildings got to build taller buildings next door. The landmark district maintains its historic scale, and developers get to build tall buildings; everyone wins.
.pc

^So your sayin that we should protect landmarked buildings even if a majority of the space within is empty? The upper floors of these buildings for the most part have been vacant for years, bringing nothing to the the neigborhood, and certainly nothing to the city as a whole.

I think it is and should be about economic balance, as well as the impact at sidewalk level. This tower will have very little impact at sidewalk level once complete, other than attracting new and/or better retailers. It will surely have impact on the economics of the neighborhood, which in turn bring in more of a tax base to the city. Certainly more than empty space would.

Just my thoughts...

From the Chicago Journal
http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=7&SubSectionID=7&ArticleID=377&TM=52830.87

Facade face-lift
A new setting on Jeweler’s Row
Thursday, May 26, 2005

By HAYDN BUSH, Staff Writer
http://chicagojournal.com/SiteImages/Article/377a.jpg


Jeweler’s Row Chicago Journal file photo

The so-called facadectomy of three modest, landmarked Jeweler’s Row buildings sailed past the Chicago Plan Commission last Thursday, clearing the way for a 71-story condo tower to rise behind the historic fronts.

Most of the public speakers at Thursday’s hearing in City Hall—a mix of architecture students, local business owners, and community groups—enthused about the building’s architectural merit and potential impact on the neighborhood. David Bahlman, executive director of the Land-marks Preservation Council of Illinois, offered measured praise for the project but decried the potential effect the plan’s ap-proval would have on the city’s other historic districts. With 42nd Ward Alderman Burton Natarus leading the charge, the Plan Commission unanimously ap-proved the project.

"This will liven up the street and make the street a little more cheery," Natarus said.

The slim, triangular high-rise would be constructed above three, five-story buildings be-tween 21-35 S. Wabash. The 71-story building would also preserve ground-floor retail space and renovate the building’s facade while reserving the next two floors for the School of the Art Institute. The School of the Art Institute currently rents the building at the northeast corner of Wabash and Monroe.

The next eight floors would be reserved for parking. The 13th floor would boast a fitness center that includes a pool and squash courts and would connect to the adjacent University Club via a skybridge. After that, 57 floors of condominiums would follow.

Department of Planning and Development Project Manager Madeleine Doering said the 71-story building would mesh well with the nearby CNA building and the 55 E. Monroe Tower, and would breathe fresh life into Wabash Avenue. Currently, several of the storefronts are vacant, and many of the office spaces above have been boarded up.

"This will redevelop three underutilized buildings and 176,000 square feet of functionally obsolete space," Doering said.

Bahlman, meanwhile, said that while he thought the project would indeed reinvigorate a dreary stretch of the Loop, he questioned the city’s disregard for the historic district designation. The buildings, Bahlman said, are part of only 10 percent of the Loop that fall in historic districts.

Bahlman added that he believed the building would weaken existing landmark districts in the city and give local property owners a chance to put the city in a compromising position.

"Its approval will present an unfortunate precedent for all local landmark districts," Bahl-man said, adding that he didn’t believe the project was given a fair public test.

Preservation Chicago Pres-ident Jonathan Fine, meanwhile, offered a swift, wholesale denunciation of the project on its merits.

"We don’t condone new buildings in front of historically significant ones," Fine said.

Most of the public speakers Thursday, though, agreed with Natarus.

Illinois Institute of Technol-ogy architecture student Butler Adams fairly gushed about the way the building would dramatically change the Chicago skyline, and noted that many of the windows of the three historic buildings are currently boarded up. He said the narrow triangular tower would also create a stair-step effect, starting with the Boul Mich streetwall and leading to the Sears Tower. Adams predicted that building would serve as a catalyst for a more vibrant downtown, bursting with activity 24 hours a day,

"I’m 100 percent in favor of this project," Adams said. "This is elegant."

Dennis Harder, senior vice president at the Joseph Green Association real estate firm that owns Carson Pirie Scott, said the project would add vitality to the surrounding area while also restoring the current street-level views.

"We’re very much in support of this from the point of view of a landlord," Harder said.

Other speakers in favor of the project included Grant Park Advisory Council President Bob O’Neill and Laura Jones, associate director of the Greater State Street Council.

For his part, Natarus added, Wabash Avenue needs a wholesale face-lift that would include the demolition of the elevated tracks running through the middle of the street. Natarus wistfully mused about long-gone plans to tear down the Loop and replace the el tracks with subways.

"Everyone thinks that’s a landmark," Natarus said. "I thought it should be demolished."

Illinois Institute of Technol-ogy architecture student Butler Adams fairly gushed about the way the building would dramatically change the Chicago skyline, and noted that many of the windows of the three historic buildings are currently boarded up. He said the narrow triangular tower would also create a stair-step effect, starting with the Boul Mich streetwall and leading to the Sears Tower. Adams predicted that building would serve as a catalyst for a more vibrant downtown, bursting with activity 24 hours a day,

"I’m 100 percent in favor of this project," Adams said. "This is elegant."

Is that you in the article, BVic? If so, your little ass just cant keep still, can you? :)

^So your sayin that we should protect landmarked buildings even if a majority of the space within is empty? The upper floors of these buildings for the most part have been vacant for years, bringing nothing to the the neigborhood, and certainly nothing to the city as a whole.

I think it is and should be about economic balance, as well as the impact at sidewalk level. This tower will have very little impact at sidewalk level once complete, other than attracting new and/or better retailers. It will surely have impact on the economics of the neighborhood, which in turn bring in more of a tax base to the city. Certainly more than empty space would.

Just my thoughts...

I second that.

Illinois Institute of Technol-ogy architecture student Butler Adams fairly gushed about the way the building would dramatically change the Chicago skyline, and noted that many of the windows of the three historic buildings are currently boarded up. He said the narrow triangular tower would also create a stair-step effect, starting with the Boul Mich streetwall and leading to the Sears Tower. Adams predicted that building would serve as a catalyst for a more vibrant downtown, bursting with activity 24 hours a day,

"I’m 100 percent in favor of this project," Adams said. "This is elegant."

Is that you in the article, BVic? If so, your little ass just cant keep still, can you? :)

^BVic has become a local celeb.

When I finally meet Butler I'm gonna ask for his autograph ;)

Hehe, I got to witness, first-hand, the rapport that Butler has developed with some of the heavy-hitters in the Chicago real-estate game (the owners of Mesa Development in this instance). Butler - you're certainly making a name for yourself :0


Now, we have no such guarantee: as with non-landmark areas, the (endlessly fungible) zoning will control the scale of development. There is now nothing stopping the owners of ANY of the lower buildings on Michigan Avenue from doing exactly the same thing;

I would hardly say that there's "nothing" stopping the destruction of historic buildings. These things still need to be approved on a case-by-case building, and I have faith that the powers that be realize the importance of protecting the buildings along the Michigan streetwall. Wabash is a completely different (and desolate) story. Perhaps I'm just naive, but, I simply can't fathom Burt Natarus ever allowing anything bad to happen to the most important part of his entire ward (Michigan Ave).

CITY REPORT
Plan Commission OKs 71-story tower on Wabash

By Jeanette Almada
Special to the Tribune
Published May 29, 2005

The Chicago Plan Commission has approved a $300 million, 71-story condominium building to go up in the Jewelers Row Historic District.

Chicago-based Mesa Development will build the tower, through Monroe/Wabash Development LLC, on a 40,000-square-foot site at 21-39 S. Wabash Ave., occupied by four buildings.

Mesa is under contract to buy three of the buildings from the Art Institute of Chicago, which will occupy 41,000 square feet of space in the new tower, according to Richard Hanson, a principal at Mesa.

The developer will enter into a right of easement agreement, in perpetuity, for ground-floor space in the existing Sharp Building, at 37-39 S. Wabash, where Mesa will build its lobby to the residential portion of the tower, Hanson said in an interview last week.

The tower will have up to 360 condos ranging from an about 900-square-foot one-bedrooms to much larger penthouses, according to Gary Klompmaker, an architect at Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates, which designed the building.

The residential portion of the tower, to occupy the building's 15th through 71st floors, will be accessed at 60 E. Monroe St. There will be more than 8,500 square feet of ground-floor retail space, which Hanson said he will not begin to market for several years because the project is in early planning stages.

He estimated that 35 to 50 percent of the units must be sold before Mesa can begin construction. The average price of units will be in the high $300,000s, Hanson estimated. Sales will begin in February.

The tower is designed with four major setbacks, Department of Planning and Development staff told the Chicago Plan Commission this month. One is at the sixth floor, where the tower meets the cornices of the three late 19th Century building facades, which will be incorporated into the design, Klompmaker said. The other three, on the 15th, 42nd and 60th floors, will have landscaped green space to be used by residents.

The Art Institute will occupy space on the second and third floors. An 18,000-square-foot athletic facility with pool, five squash courts and workout rooms will be on the 13th and 14th floors, and will be connected to the University Club via a 13th-floor sky bridge, Planning Department officials told plan commissioners.

Mesa is negotiating with a syndicate of banks for financing, Hanson told commissioners.

Though City Council approval of the tower is still needed, the Plan Commission's approval of the project as a planned development is a major step in a lengthy dispute between preservationists who oppsed the building and city planners who championed the project.

Critics charge that the project sets a precedent that allows high-rises to go up in otherwise low-rise historic districts -- no more than 300 feet tall in the Wabash Avenue Jewelers Row Historic District. "I don't understand why we set up these historic districts, then ignore the guidelines that protect them," David Bahlman, executive director of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, told commissioners.

His organization, in its June board meeting, will consider filing a suit against the city for violation of historic district guidelines, Bahlman said in an interview last week. He conceded, though, that such action might be futile.

"We went to the Supreme Court to fight Soldier Field and that didn't stop that development, and yet this is a slippery slope that sets a terrible, terrible precedent. Everyone is so high on the fact that this is doing good things for the city, good things for the Art Institute, good things for Wabash Avenue and for contributing buildings that are in decay. But there has been no discussion about shadow studies, traffic studies, and they are ignoring the fact that there is a historic district there," Bahlman said.

" . . . For as long as the city has had a landmark district program, it has respected prevailing building heights. Now they are throwing that guideline out, and we think it will be much more difficult for the city to fend off other developers in the future [who want to build non-compliant projects] in historic districts," Bahlman said.

City officials told the Plan Commission that the new tower will enliven a dark and dank Wabash Avenue. Ald. Burton Natarus, a plan commissioner whose 42nd Ward includes the tower site, asserted that Wabash Avenue is a special circumstance, a dark commercial street diminished by unsightly elevated tracks.

He added that he championed demolition of those tracks decades ago, while preservationists fought to have the "L" protected with landmark status.

"Wabash Avenue may be called a Jewelers Row but that strip is dirty, it's tacky, it's seedy," Commissioner Nancy Pacher said as she approved the project. "It looks awful; it doesn't look like a Jewelers Row. It looks like a cheap fast-food strip, and I, for one, can't wait until this development takes place."

CITY REPORT
Plan Commission OKs 71-story tower on Wabash

By Jeanette Almada
Special to the Tribune
Published May 29, 2005

The Chicago Plan Commission has approved a $300 million, 71-story condominium building to go up in the Jewelers Row Historic District.

"Wabash Avenue may be called a Jewelers Row but that strip is dirty, it's tacky, it's seedy," Commissioner Nancy Pacher said as she approved the project. "It looks awful; it doesn't look like a Jewelers Row. It looks like a cheap fast-food strip, and I, for one, can't wait until this development takes place."
:cheers1:

A new city is being built right under our very own eyes!
Simply amazing...

Does anyone know if this is the third tallest highrise going up after the Trump and the Waterview? I know there are several 50+ story highrises approved for construction, but I think this is the only one that breaks 70 stories. Maybe the Elysian and 800 S. Wabash? Or One Museum Park (but I think this will be 63 stories)? Also I hear the Presbyterian Tower will be upwards of 60+ stories.

OTP, any rendering on 830 S. Wabash? I think it supposed to be supertall, not sure.

A new city is being built right under our very own eyes!
Simply amazing...

Does anyone know if this is the third tallest highrise going up after the Trump and the Waterview? I know there are several 50+ story highrises approved for construction, but I think this is the only one that breaks 70 stories. Maybe the Elysian and 800 S. Wabash? Or One Museum Park (but I think this will be 63 stories)? Also I hear the Presbyterian Tower will be upwards of 60+ stories.

Yes, this building is right behind Waterview Tower in terms of height.

^
Is it too early to talk about completion dates??

"
- There is NOT a bottomless market for development. Really. I'm certainly in favor of increased density and activity, but we should remember that overdevelopment in one location can lead to underdevelopment in another, and deeper boom/bust cycles. There are still vacant buildings nearby to reuse: CNA Plaza is a third empty, 59 E Van Buren sits completely empty, and vacant lots are as close by as Randolph or Van Buren and Wabash (not to mention the 20,000 vacant lots elsewhere in the city!). There's no need to make zombies out of not only serviceable, but beautiful, buildings in the name of "progress."
.pc

I had been almost completely pro-development on this case until I read Payton's thoughtful piece. I had assumed these properties as they were were not viable, and the fact that they had been sitting boarded up, idle, all this time was proof enough. But as Payton pointed out, the prediction of higher density development may have served as a disincentive for the Art Institute, as owner, to invest in the property. Payton, do you have any evidence of this, or is this speculation?

Also, I thought 59 East Van Buren -- designed by Holabird and Root -- was mostly occupied. What happened with that property?

" I simply can't fathom Burt Natarus ever allowing anything bad to happen to the most important part of his entire ward (Michigan Ave)."

Well, you have much more faith in Burt than I do. Also, re-read this:

"The current condition of the buildings has nothing to do with their actual utility. The Art Institute (the owner) has been sitting on them for a while, looking for an opportunity to sell them to a developer. Why invest in them when you could sit tight for a few months/years and cash out instead?"

The buildings are perfectly usable right now for AIC uses, but the AIC decided a few years ago to bet instead that they could get the site upzoned. If they hadn't expected to get an upzone, I'm sure the buildings would be fully occupied right now. That's the way land speculation works: it's most obvious with surface parking lots, where there's no incentive to build a 5-story building today when you could, perhaps, maybe, build a 50-story building in ten years. This cycle benefits only the landowners, and we the citizens should not encourage it through willy-nilly upzoning (or downzoning).

In the late 1990s, the Art Institute had plans to rehab the Jewelers Row and Evans Fur (State/Monroe, now Metropolis Lofts) buildings for SAIC dormitory and classroom space--as they did with the Chicago Building at State/Madison. However, the AIC's endowment was hit hard by the stock market downturn and suspended its real estate development activities, putting its vacant buildings up for sale.

Again, if Chicago had a Transferable Development Rights scheme, Mesa could have purchased a nearby site for its tower and bought development rights from the Art Institute to build the tall tower you guys want. The AIC would get the cash to rehab its space, a vacant lot would be filled, the tower would still get built, and the scale of the Loop's two most important historic districts would still be preserved into perpetuity.
.pc

The buildings are perfectly usable right now for AIC uses, but the AIC decided a few years ago to bet instead that they could get the site upzoned. If they hadn't expected to get an upzone, I'm sure the buildings would be fully occupied right now. That's the way land speculation works: it's most obvious with surface parking lots, where there's no incentive to build a 5-story building today when you could, perhaps, maybe, build a 50-story building in ten years. This cycle benefits only the landowners, and we the citizens should not encourage it through willy-nilly upzoning (or downzoning).
.pc

^Payton, despite obviously great points you make in arguing against this development, I'll have to say that I disagree with you, mostly on the basis that this development brings more to the area than it takes away.

Lets look at the situation. Chicago is a city that, more than New York, has suffered in the past 50 years. Despite looking like a city that "has it made", Chicago is actually a city that very nearly collapsed in the past 15-20 years, and at some point was, most assuredly, quite desperate.

Chicago is quite afloat now in a new demographic trend in which people suddenly are interested in cities, culture, and using public transportation. Considering the bottomless pit that Chicago was facing as recently as 10 years ago, I think it is safe to say that the city should ride this wave as enthusiastically as possible.

I think Chicago is showing remarkable poise and consideration, considering the abounding opportunities. Although many historical structures have been demolished, the city has also worked to preserve many structures and districts. In the end, though, I think the city is hedging its bets that it would be better off adding density to otherwise virtually dead areas, rather than hoping for the possibility of renovation. It's not unreasonable for Chicago to strike some sort of a compromise, such as preserving facades, even though it may disrupt the integrity of an historic district. In the end, the city is thinking about all possibilities and allowing for a discussion, but choosing what is probably better over all.

Think about it, what's actually better for downtown? Restored old buildings with relatively little activity (but attractive to historians), or restored facades with levels of density and activity not seen for decades, adding to the tax base--yet still not looking like Houston because pieces of history still dominate the street?

The best example I can give is the Noble Fool's Theater. I walked by it on my last visit and noticed that it was sort of the "facade" of the building with a highrise built atop it. To me, it looked like a great synthesis, and certainly gave the area a feeling of "age" and "history" despite the fact that it had likely been completely gutted and its scale warped by the presence of a highrise behind it.

What will happen in 67 South Wabash is likely to be even less dramatic than that, since pedestrians will barely even notice that a highrise pops out of the tops of those buildings. A 30 foot setback is not bad. The same goes for the Heritage at Millennium Park.

I like the development, and those are my reasons

GAZETTE


New high rises planned for the Loop and South Loop draw much attention and debate

By Marie Balice Ward

(6/3/05) - Two new high rises are being developed at Monroe St./Wabash Ave. and at 830 S. Michigan Ave. Presentations were sponsored by the Grant Park Advisory Council and the Grant Park Conservancy which was attended by more than 70 people, most of whom are in favor of the planned high rises and their co-existence with historical buildings, explained Grant Park Advisory Council and Conser-vancy President Bob O’Neill. One dissenting vote for the Monroe St./Wabash Ave. project was the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.
“We diligently supported the ‘land marking’ of the Grant Park/Michigan Avenue Street Wall creating the Historic Michigan Boulevard District,” O’Neill stated. “We thought it was important in preserving very beautiful and historic buildings. The Jewelers Row District and the Historic Michigan Boulevard District are very important but need an infusion of capital to bring life back to so many of the decaying historic buildings.
“It may seem a contradiction,” said O’Neill, “but high rises and the greening of Chicago go hand-in-hand: a close to perfect fit! High rises and landscaping are integral to the fabric of downtown Chicago and environmentally essential to a cleaner, greener city. We need to continue to create more natural landscapes in the city to complement our high rises. High rises prevent suburban sprawl and lead to more concentrated and significant cultural and natural areas in the City such as Grant Park and Northerly Island which present a perfect, natural habitat and resting place for nature and people.”
Thomas Kerwin, president of American Institute of Architects (AIA) Chicago, and partner at Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP, stated, “High rise density must be supported by a solid infrastructure which Chicago does enjoy.” Kerwin added, “Density is a ‘positive’ if the environment can support it with access to transit, open spaces such as Grant Park, mixed use properties, an ‘amenable’ street and sidewalk network and amenities such as rivers and lakes.” He explained that the move back to urban areas is occurring worldwide. However, in many cities he has visited, including some in Asia, the cities’ infrastructures cannot support the density.
Jim Peters, Director of Preser-vation Planning, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, stated that his organization has testified opposing the height of the Jewelers Row project. “This structure will be more than 816 feet tall - taller than any building on Michigan Avenue and certainly taller than any building along Jewelers Row. Buildings must be designed to respect the scale that exists within the environment.” He added that there were no shadow studies done for Wabash Ave., Michigan Ave. or Grant Park. Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois is a statewide, not-for-profit advocacy group with no government affiliation.

Legacy at Millennium Park—21–39 S. Wabash Ave./52-64 E. Monroe St.
A glass and aluminum curtain wall will rise 71 stories while preserving the façade of the Jewelers Row buildings currently occupying 21 S. to 39 S. on Wabash Ave. This condominium tower in development by Mesa Development LLC will have more than 300 residential units, about 460 garage spaces and 8,000–10,000 sq. ft. of retail space. The project’s architectural firm is Solomon Cordwell Buenz of Chicago.
Richard Hanson of Mesa Development LLC said that the Chicago Planning Commission granted approval on May 19; in early May the Chicago Landmarks Committee voted in favor the development. The project also has the support of Alderman Burton Natarus. “Groundbreaking is likely to occur next year,” said Hanson. “We are about half way in obtaining approvals. We still need the approvals from Zoning and the City Council.” Hanson also explained that the current properties on Wabash Ave. are under option to buy. The project’s footprint, he said, is about 40,000 sq. ft.
“We believe—as do many others—that modern buildings constructed next to/near historic ones make the historic buildings even more beautiful and recognizable. We also think that it is a good compromise that we get high rises which take advantage of the views of Grant Park and the Lake and energize the area’s culture, nature, and restaurants while financing the preservation of some of the historic buildings on Wabash and Michigan Ave.,” said O’Neill.

830 S. Michigan Ave.
A new condominium tower is planned for 830 S. Michigan Ave. restoring the shuttered building that previously was occupied by the YWCA.
Renaissant Development Group LLC is planning to restore the YWCA building and build a tower behind it on Wabash Ave. that will meet the landmark guidelines for south Michigan Ave.
Said Stephen Ward, vice president and director of real estate relations of the Greater South Loop Association, “We are very pleased about the restoration of the YWCA building and we look forward to reviewing the new design.” He added that, “According to the current plans there will be residences on Wabash Ave. and Michigan Ave. and parking will not be exposed on either street.”
“The plans are only available in a conceptual layout format, and it is difficult to determine exactly where the tower will be situated,” said Peters. “We are concerned the building may be positioned on top of the YWCA structure. We would be pleased to see the tower located behind the YWCA building.”
“Residential high rises are essential to the cultural, environmental and retail fabric of downtown Chicago. High rise residents are great supporters of culture and retail. High rises also generate much-needed property tax revenue and create the beauty of active street life and bustling sidewalks and public transit,” added O’Neill.
Renaissant Development Group declined comment at this time, explaining that it is too early to discuss plans for the project at 830 S. Michigan Ave.

I worked on The Heritage, and there is a good chance that the company I work for, Walsh Construction Co. of IL, will get this one too. I will be taking a project management position with them later this summer after I finish school. Good chance this could be my first building.

Congratulations! You'll have to keep us updated on any inside information you may come across.

I certainly will.

I certainly will.

^Are you that Apprentice guy?

No, but it would have been nice to be making $250,000 working for Trump last year.

I'm a laborer foreman for Walsh Const. I've been working on highrises for 8 years and I'll be switching over to project management after I finish school this summer.

About "The Legacy", the talk around the trailers is that Walsh did a good job on "The Heritage" so we have a good shot at winning this contract as well.

June 22, 2004

Newcastle Limited to Conduct Sealed-Bid Offering for Three Loop Commercial Buildings for The Art Institute of Chicago.


CHICAGO - Newcastle Limited has been retained by The Art Institute of Chicago to conduct a sealed-bid offering for three Loop commercial buildings, located in Jewelers Row on the east side of Wabash Avenue between Madison and Monroe Streets, announced Michael R. Haney, President of Chicago-based real estate firm. Newcastle Limited is a national real estate advisory and development firm serving not-for-profit corporations, institutions, investors, corporations and governmental agencies.
According to Haney, The Art Institute acquired the buildings in 1999 for potential use as school facilities, but has since determined that proceeds from the sale of the buildings will best be re-deployed to support its core mission. The deadline for submitting proposals is July 15, 2004. The buildings will be offered individually or as a package.

The properties are located at 21-29 South Wabash Avenue within the City of Chicago's "Jewelers Row District," which was designated a Chicago Landmark in July of 2003. The five- and six-story wood-framed brick structures, built between 1872 and 1881, comprise a total land area of 28,400 SF and 176,700 SF of office and retail space including one level beneath grade.
"Although significant capital improvements would be required to achieve the upside potential of these buildings, they are diamonds in the rough, and they are in one of Chicago's best locations in close proximity to Millennium Park, Lake Michigan and the State Street shopping area. A purchaser may use the financial benefits of historic tax credits, the Historic District designation, the existing TIF district, and the lower real estate taxes available through Cook County's "Class L" incentive program to add value to these assets," he said.

The site is zoned B6-7 allowing a base floor-area ratio of 16.0. "The key to unlocking the value of these facilities is either the development of the 27,200 SF of street-level retail space with creative reuse of the upper floors or the redevelopment of the entire parcel combined with the additional development rights and Monroe Street access provided by the adjacent Art Institute-owned corner building into a mixed-use, high-rise project. The 'East Loop' market, which historically has been a corridor of an eclectic mix of retail and office users, is positioned for rejuvenation as a result of recent successful residential developments and the demand for retail space and other amenities," he said. According to Haney, the properties are being marketed to Chicago-area developers, not-for-profit organizations, retail property investors, and owners of similar and nearby properties.
The Jewelers Row Historic Landmark District is bounded by Washington Street on the north, Monroe Street on the south, State Street on the west, and Garland Court on the east. Those structures in the district, designed by some of Chicago's most significant architects and built between 1872 and 1941, represent many important building types including post-Chicago Fire and Chicago School loft manufacturing, mercantile and office buildings and early 20th Century skyscrapers.

Recently Newcastle Limited represented 73 owners in the $35,000,000 disposition of the historic, 1,300,000 SF, 14-acre South Water Market; represented Loyola University Chicago in the disposition of its 17-acre Mallinckrodt Campus to the Wilmette Park District; represented Baxter International in a sealed-bid disposition of a 70-acre development property in Lake County; and represented the Eleanor Women's Foundation in the disposition of its 1550 North Dearborn Parkway building to The Latin School of Chicago. The company is currently representing Loyola University Chicago in the development of a 24,800 SF high-rise site within its Water Tower Campus and Metropolitan Family Services on the sale of 116 acres on the Fox River in McHenry County.

Chicago-based Newcastle Limited is a national commercial real estate firm serving governmental agencies, institutions, not-for-profit organizations, corporations and private investors. The firm's strategic advisory, development and investment services are designed to reduce project risk and maximize asset value. To learn more about Newcastle, call Mike Haney at (312) 252-1401 or visit the company website at www.newcastlelimited.com.

Newcastle Limited Negotiates Sale of Jewelers Row Properties to Mesa Development

Newcastle Limited represented the Art Institute of Chicago in the sale of three buildings located at 21-29 South Wabash Avenue to Chicago-based Mesa Development in a sealed-bid transaction.

(PRWEB) September 10, 2005 -- Newcastle Limited represented the Art Institute of Chicago in the sale of three buildings located at 21-29 South Wabash Avenue to Chicago-based Mesa Development in a sealed-bid transaction.

Located in the Wabash Avenue and State Street retail corridor, the Jewelers Row Properties consist of three buildings: 21-23 South Wabash, 25-27 South Wabash, and 29 South Wabash totaling 176,700 gross square feet of space on a 28,400 square-foot site.

“We are pleased to complete this complex transaction for the Art Institute because it eliminates ownership costs for three underutilized buildings and it provides more than 40,000 square feet of brand new expansion space for the School in the base of Mesa’s new tower” said S.L. van der Zanden, Managing Principal of Newcastle Limited.

Mesa Development purchased the buildings to construct a 71-story, 360-unit residential condominium building that will feature unobstructed views of the lakefront and Millennium Park. The luxury residences will occupy the building’s 15th through 71st floors and will be accessed at 60 E. Monroe via an easement through the School of the Art Institute’s headquarters at the corner of Monroe and Wabash. The School of The Art Institute of Chicago will occupy space on the second and third floors which will be connected directly to their adjacent property. In addition, an 18,000-square-foot athletic facility with a pool, squash courts and workout rooms will be developed on the 13th and 14th floors of the project for the University Club of Chicago and connected to the Club via a 13th-floor sky bridge.

About Newcastle Limited
Newcastle Limited is a national commercial real estate firm serving institutions, not-for-profit organizations, corporations, and private investors. The firm’s strategic advisory, development and investment services are designed to reduce project risk and maximize asset value. To learn more about Newcastle, call Mike Haney at (312) 252-1401 or visit the company website at www.newcastlelimited.com.

About Mesa Development
Mesa Development is a real estate development and investment company with proven leadership in the development, design, and construction of a wide range of residential, mixed-use and corporate developments. Recent projects include the nearby “Heritage at Millennium Park” with luxury residential condominiums at Wabash and Randolph.

Is this the Legacy at Milenium Park or is this a different building, I ran the address at emporis http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=206929 ,
it comes up with a never built 37 story building, I ran 21-39 also http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=229842

so I am confused if these two are the same building or not

Is this the Legacy at Milenium Park or is this a different building, I ran the address at emporis http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=206929 ,
it comes up with a never built 37 story building, I ran 21-39 also http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=229842

so I am confused if these two are the same building or not

Both of those links are correct. The one that has the rendering of the tower is what it will look like. I don't know about the unbuilt building that you mentioned, but the Legacy will be 71-stories and about 822'

Could somebody (Steely, ahem..) please change the name of this thread to The Legacy at Millennium Park? :)

Could somebody (Steely, ahem..) please change the name of this thread to The Legacy at Millennium Park? :)

Might as well correct the height of it as well...

I swear I completely forgot about this one!
This is a pretty nice sized building. I'm glad the city council approved it last spring. Let's get this baby built!

Here we go:::Today's Tribune Real Estate Section 09/18/05

www.TheLegacyatMillenniumPark.com

That is a pretty sleek looking building!

That site has been up for the longest of times I thought. They even mentioned it on the Heritage's site in case people who didn't get a unit could still have one in another tower.

That site has been up for the longest of times I thought. They even mentioned it on the Heritage's site in case people who didn't get a unit could still have one in another tower.

I don't think so. I believe that it's brand new, and if it isn't, I'd certainly have to ask why the hell it wasn't posted in the past if people knew about it?

Never the less, it's the first time that there was an add within the Real Estate section of the paper. There was a beautiful color rendering also.

I don't know. I've visited the site well before you posted the link. I thought other people knew of it since their picture in the flash intro was already posted (I even took a screenshot but that stupid dove lady was in the way :)).

Saw this today:

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/9275/legacy15hm.png

I think that's a classy ad.

It would be truly awesome if we could get this built as well as Calatrava, Waterview, Trump, Mandarin, and 830 S. Michigan ( 70 stories so I am thinking arouund 800 ft give or take).

Wow think of it Legacy at 822, Calatrava at 2000, Waterview at 1050 Trump at 1360, Mandarin at close to 900, and 830 S. Michigan at prob somwhere around 800.

That is some serious height addition to the Midwest mountain range.

To bad we can't get a rendering to give us an idea of how spectacular it would be.

Oh I almost forgot :

Do you have an update for the content on this page?
[Write to Emporis] [Become a photographer]

Identification
Official name 29-39 South LaSalle
Emporis Building Number 238151

Location
Address *
Bordering street #1 South LaSalle Street*
Bordering street #2 West Monroe Street*
Postcode *
Neighborhood Loop*
District Downtown*
City Chicago
Country U.S.A.

Technical Data
Height (struct.) 265 m 870 ft
Height (roof) *
Floors (OG) 51


SO that is 7 at 800 or more AMAZING i hope they get built :)

We should work on preserving buildings themselves, and not the skyline's appearance. I bet the Hancock and Sears were VERY strange when first built, but people get used to things easily. The skyline should just evolve naturally, AS LONG as the actual buildings are of the finest quality architecture.

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/5466/1160012kk.jpg

Like that rendering a bit more.

It's a little small though :)

At the base, will it be jointed with the neighbor nextdoor?

^ Damn Chad, 19,000 posts? Must be the highest number I've seen

Regarding the rendering of Legacy, it's a beaut, isn't it? We sure have come a long way when it comes to highrise design in our city--it's like a coming of age

"New" perspective from SCB site:

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/4224/1107055cz.jpg

^ Damn Chad, 19,000 posts? Must be the highest number I've seen


hes up to 20,270 already , wow , 1200 posts in only a few days , it took me a year just to reach half that number. he must be pretty board. somthings wrong withthat number :runaway:

I've got both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee on the phone now wanting to consult with Chad.

And that building is damned precious.

Well, I just came from the Legacy sales center, and I must say tha business was booming. There was quite a crowd, and quite a few people putting down reservation deposits. I'd say that at least 200 of the units were reserved. They had a touch screen to see what units were available, and sales agents were passing around updates stats of what units were available to one another.

I was told that they hope to reach their quota of 50% by June, and this means actual signed contracts. 95% of the people that I saw today in the sales center were empty nesters. I saw only 2 or 3 younger people with minor kids there.

I did take some photos of the model, and I will post those tomorrow after I edit them.

It was also mentioned to me that there is another tower in the works that will be somewhere in the east loop. More information won't be available until next year, but to put it lightly, it will probably be taller then the Legacy:)

That's all for now.

that is really good news!!

New renderings

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/7770/legacy3ls.jpg
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8342/legacy20vu.jpg

spyguy, thanks.

great pictures. don't you love the way technology actually can put the building plans into a photograph....and it actually looks like it belongs?

one point: The Michigan Avenue streetwall is more than a Chicago treasure, it's a national treasure. There is nothing like it anywhere. I love it.

Yet from a view perspective, I always found something missing with the street wall. Not from Michigan Avenue...on either side of the street. There it is impressive looking up those 20-30 floors that most of these buildings contain. Impressive, but powerful.

No, from Michigan Avenue, everything was great. What I didn't care for that much was the view from further east, directly on the Grant Park lakefront. From there, I didn't see the power of the Chicago skyline that I see from so many other angles. What particularly didn't work for me was the fact that the buildings rising behind the wall, especially on Wabash, didn't reach the type of heights I would have preferred.

But from what I can see, the Heritage and the Legacy and others like them will give the street wall an appropriately impressive height at its rear....and the juxtiposition of both will be a sight to behold.

Anyone else see this as an improvement of an uncharacteristically low look for a major skyline shot....or is it just me?

Good news about the sales interest, edsg. I agree about with your observations the building wall -- the addition of a few tall Wabash towers will better convey that a formidable city lies behind the (smaller scale) gems of Michigan Avenue, especially from the ground-level perspective of Grant Park.

This building also would allay the graceless bulk of 55 E. Monroe to the south.

Good news about the sales interest, edsg. I agree about with your observations the building wall -- the addition of a few tall Wabash towers will better convey that a formidable city lies behind the (smaller scale) gems of Michigan Avenue, especially from the ground-level perspective of Grant Park.

This building also would allay the graceless bulk of 55 E. Monroe to the south.

absolutely, ChiPsy: look at it as a totally win/win siutation: the Street Wall stays in tact and actually improves with the more height (and thus constrast) behind it. The two eras will be totally compatible.

Legacy would bring more expsosure to the historic Michigan Ave wall. That means more future high rise sprouting up at the fronts. Hopefully, the developers would take great care to make sure their designs do not overwhelm but should greatly enhance the Mich Ave wall.

Hot damn this tower is so sexy. I may be pulling for this one moreso than any other.

I'm just glad that it leads one's eye off Mid-Continental Plaza, I can not stand that monstrosity.

Legacy would bring more expsosure to the historic Michigan Ave wall. That means more future high rise sprouting up at the fronts. Hopefully, the developers would take great care to make sure their designs do not overwhelm but should greatly enhance the Mich Ave wall.

i agree. but the streetwall is incapable of being breached where it is most impressive....from michigan avenue itself where proximity will allow nothing else to dominate. you'd have to go east to really get a sense of what's behind. And in that sense, you get something that if done well is hard to ruin, more likely to enhance: the old city in front, its buildings forever protected because nothign can be built east of them....with the new city rising behind in contrast.

Add to this the relatiely flat skyline of the street wall, you have the best of both worlds.

In contrast, the worst of both worlds is/was Lower Manhattan. No a street wall, but once a series of narrow towers of differing height and intricate tops, this unique (and most romantic of all skylines) was compromised and brutalized but big, boxy buildings intersperced with the charming older ones.

thank goodness there is nothing comparable along the Street Wall and on Wabash and State, etc., behind.

I have to say this is a very sleek looking tower, and it's height is just right for it's location. I have a good feeling about this one. I think by this time next year we should be discussing groundbreaking!

Here are the photos that I took this past Sunday of the model in the sales center. Excuse the people, they got in my way:)

The western face.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp335%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483763nu0mrj

The restored facades along Wabash.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp338%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483773nu0mrj

The northern face.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp336%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483778nu0mrj

Green roof along the top northern edge of the parking structure.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp337%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A648377%3Anu0mrj

Green roof along the top southern edge of the parking structure.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp338%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A648377%3Bnu0mrj

The western face.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp338%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A648377%3Cnu0mrj

Skygarden on the 60th floor.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp338%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483787nu0mrj

Restored facade of the Sharp Building at the southeast corner of Wabash & Monroe.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp335%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483789nu0mrj

View to the northeast.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp337%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A648378%3Cnu0mrj

View to the north of the southern face.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp336%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483799nu0mrj

Restored base of the Sharp Building along the Monroe Street side.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp337%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A64837%3A8nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp337%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A64837%3A%3Bnu0mrj

Skygarden on the 40th floor.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp338%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6492%3B%3B4nu0mrj

Photo of a rendering of a view to the southeast.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp336%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483784nu0mrj

Photo of a rendering to a view to the northeast.
http://images.snapfish.com/345%3B9676%3A%7Ffp336%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32334%3A6483786nu0mrj

Great shots, BVictor!

Legacy definitely would bring back life on Wabash St and Monroe St.

Those last two are superb. I didn't imagine the eastern side looking like that.

Can anyone tell me what floor of the Legacy I would have to be on in order to have an unobstructed view south over the 55 E. Monroe Bldg? Thanks.

Can anyone tell me what floor of the Legacy I would have to be on in order to have an unobstructed view south over the 55 E. Monroe Bldg? Thanks.

Well, 55 E. Monroe is 582' and 50 stories. So maybe at about the 55th floor of the Legacy you'd clear 55 E. Monroe.

I noticed on skyscraperpage the drawing of this bldg.has changed same height but different design,is this an official design change?

^ nope, the new drawing on SSP reflects the same design, just from a different angle. the image you're used to is the grant park facade, but the western facade (the one shown in the new SSP diagram) is quite a bit different, as you can see.

Just a preview. The base is unfinished and therefore conveniently out of sight.

And shame on you people for letting this slide to page 3.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5815/lamp14bt.jpg

what do guys think legacy's chances are??

100% no doubt that it will be built.

^^I really hope so. This is one of my favorite proposals for the city. I love this building.

Well the website that used to be heritagecondos.com (the old Heritage at Millennium Park) site now redirects to a site for the Legacy. Given the way the Heritage sold, I would bet that this one won't have any trouble becoming reality.

Just a reminder about the Legacy:

http://www.thelegacyatmillenniumpark.com/pdf/todaysNewHomes.pdf

Here's a nice rendering of how the Legacy will fit into the skyline as seen from east of Millenium Park

http://www.thelegacyatmillenniumpark.com/press.asp

Is this the beginning? This scaffolding was spotted going up tonight where the Legacy is supposed to rise. All the stores along this stretch of Wabash have slowly but surely vacated their spaces.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5460/legacy1dy4.jpg

How does the caisson-drilling and foundation work occur with these projects? Unlike many projects, which started from a parking lot or demolished an existing building, this one will preserve the Wabash facades. Do they simply put up scaffolding along the facades, and then carefully demolish the rest of the buildings? Then they are effectively left with an empty lot with "facade walls" in which to start building?

I assume it will be done in the same method as Heritage, but I didn't really follow Heritage's construction until the final months.

You're spot-on. They will brace the facades of the buildings that are being preserved, then demolish everything behind them and excavate/build as usual.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/3861/legacycq1.jpg

It looks so incredibly thin from this angle
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3713/lg3ia7.jpg

It looks so incredibly thin from this angle
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3713/lg3ia7.jpg

Yea, watch out for da paper cut...lol!
Is it legacy or something, not much news going on for this one?:cheers:

September 19, 2006

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3839/p9190179lr8.jpg

Another image
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6339/lgcy2fw7.jpg

September 19, 2006

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3839/p9190179lr8.jpg

The nearest facade in the photo, i.e., the building with the first two floors open to the elements, once housed Harding's Restaurant from the 1930's through the 1960's.

In the 1960's, when I was a kid, Harding's was part of the Christmastime ritual for our family. Our parents would bring the six kids in our family down to Marshall Field's and then to dinner at Hardings.

The back room of Harding's was called "Pirate's Cove." They had a Treasure Chest up against one of the walls. The waiters wore pirate-style tri-corn hats.

When a child cleaned his/her plate, the waiter would give the child a fancy fake-parchment certificate to bring over to the Treasure Chest. The certificate enabled the child to grab a small wrapped present out of the Treasure Chest. The present was usually a small toy.

I support the Legacy project, but we should take note of the rich history that filled these low-rise buildings. Think of all the families that laughed inside where that gaping hole now stands. Life goes on!

Nice story! I have a lot of neat memories of lost stores and restaurants like that, too. My most cherished one is probably a memory of visting Salvage One with my parents when I was 8 or so. This was back when they were in a warehouse off Maxwell Street; I loved all the layers of history you could see there in the warehouse. The warehouse no longer exists in that form, and it's why I've taken every opportunity I have to document old industrial architecture.

So yeah, I miss all the quirky urban stuff that leaves when an area become trendy - the weird signage, the restaurants, painted-on-brick ads, warehouses, etc. I wish some local businesses would stay, though. It worked in Manhattan.

It will be a shame if they gutted those old buildings and then don't build this tower. There is a similar problem here in Providence, but I don't like that tower but would love to see the Legacy come to fruition.

Why wouldn't they build it? It's over 70% sold I believe.

Why wouldn't they build it? It's over 70% sold I believe.

i believe that he's just comparing it to what happened where he lives. i suppose that you never know what could happen.

All the facades have been braced and I would assume demo will be starting shortly.

http://static.flickr.com/107/306280139_2dce5d27a1_o.jpg

I never got around to posting this picture on SSC. It's from November 2. Demo was well underway then.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/718/pb020143no4.jpg

That's what I get for not going around back to the alley :)

I dont know how i missed this building before,
but I really really like it, and am very happy they saved the facades of the buildings below,
what I wonder about is if Chicago is a tad hasty with this sort of thing?,
more so than Newyork?, facade saving and tall building above instead of something just being historical and untouchable,

Definitely nice nice project though

NYC seems to be doing the same thing with many buildings, including Hearst.

Yeah I was just comparing to a similar situation here in my city. I'm almost sure this one will happen.

what I wonder about is if Chicago is a tad hasty with this sort of thing?,
more so than Newyork?, facade saving and tall building above instead of something just being historical and untouchable

This is the Jewelers Row landmark district, which was supposed to be untouchable. Chicago's landmark ordinance says designated buildings cannot be demolished and new construction must be similar in height and massing to surrounding buildings. Until this project was approved, no one knew you could interpret that to mean wiping out all but the front 12 feet and putting an 800-foot building in a low-rise district.

Well, I think it's a fair trade off.

For all practical purposes the streetscape looks exactly the same to the passerby, perhaps even better than before. And we get a beautiful, glassy highrise to top it off.

Until this project was approved, no one knew you could interpret that to mean wiping out all but the front 12 feet and putting an 800-foot building in a low-rise district.

Umm. Yeah. I would hardly call this a low-rise district? Mid-Continental plaza is DIRECTLY across the street from the future site of the Legacy and stands at 582'. The Heritage is two blocks to the north at well over 600', CNA Plaza two blocks to the south is 601' tall, and there's 100 more towers in a four block radius.

Until this project was approved, no one knew you could interpret that to mean wiping out all but the front 12 feet and putting an 800-foot building in a low-rise district.

^ Seriously Mack, what's with you and height anyway? There's a city out there that's perfect for you--it's called Washington DC.

I lived there for 3 years. It's a great town, and no shadows. The buildings all look like they've had their heads chopped off, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps you would be happier over there, and I'm not joking.

It's not the height that bothers me, it's the location--and the process issue related to that.

Chicago has no shortage of appropriate places to put tall buildings. Putting one in the center of a designated landmark district sets a terrible precedent. How do you tell the guy who wants to build a 70-foot townhouse in Old Town that he can't when you've just allowed a 800-foot tower in the middle of Jewelers Row? Landmarks Illinois (formerly LPCI) is very worried that this precedent--violating the Landmarks Commission's own written guidelines--now endangers historic districts all over the city.

This is downtown we're talking about.

I don't understand people that move into downtown and then complain about it being downtown. What do you expect? I do not move to Schaumburg and comlplain about a lack of density or whatever and the trains.

It's not the height that bothers me, it's the location--and the process issue related to that.

Chicago has no shortage of appropriate places to put tall buildings. Putting one in the center of a designated landmark district sets a terrible precedent. How do you tell the guy who wants to build a 70-foot townhouse in Old Town that he can't when you've just allowed a 800-foot tower in the middle of Jewelers Row? Landmarks Illinois (formerly LPCI) is very worried that this precedent--violating the Landmarks Commission's own written guidelines--now endangers historic districts all over the city.


Welcome to Chicago!!!

I agree, we no shortage of appropriate places to put tall buildings, this being one of them along with 830 South Michigan and the old Auditorium Theatre parking garage and lot.

You can tell a guy no in Old Town because it isn't a highrise district. It's mainly single family,2 and 3 flats with a few bigger structures.

The South Loop is exactly that South Loop. It is a highrise district. All down Indiana, Michigan, Wabash and State; from Cermack to congress, highrises are going up left and right.

If the landmarks were so important, they would have been renovated years ago and restored, but that never happened. Now the opportunity has been presented to restored what is visible and most important, the facades. The side walls butted against neighboring buildings and the interiors were altered beyond belief. Nothing other than the facades were worthy of being saved. You can't even see the Heritage much from Wabash because it is setback, and the same will hold true for the Legacy. The will be visible from the west sidewalk, but so what!!!

"Old" does not always mean "Historic"

It's not the height that bothers me, it's the location--and the process issue related to that.

^ Actually, it is the height

Chicago has no shortage of appropriate places to put tall buildings.

^ Yes it does. How much land area is devoted to lowrise structures, and compare that to the amount of land devoted to highrise structures.

Which of those two is larger? The former is probably thousands of times larger than the latter. So yes, there is a shortage. So stop messing around with what little land we have, please. Thanks.

About 13 percent of the Loop (enclosed by the river, Congress, and Michigan) is designated as a Chicago Landmark or landmark district. Are you saying some of those should be dedesignated because there are not enough building sites?

Please be specific about which ones should be torn down.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/Maps/LoopSouth.html

I'm all for landmark designations and historic preservation. But, should we be forced to look at blighted, vacant buildings just because someone deemed them landmarks? Those buildings that are truly worth saving will, more often than not, find themselves being saved (Reliance Building, North American Building, etc.). I'm so sick of seeing filthy, disinvested property on Wabash Avenue that just sits there - devoid of purpose and devoid of life. The insides of all of those structures are useless in terms of preservation - the "look" is what they're trying to save. And by performing a "facadectomy" they're doing just that and breathing new life into, otherwise, vacant space.

About 13 percent of the Loop (enclosed by the river, Congress, and Michigan) is designated as a Chicago Landmark or landmark district. Are you saying some of those should be dedesignated because there are not enough building sites?

^ Personally, I think it's people like you who are forcing developers to resort to doing these facadectomies that you so loathe.

You're trying to block highrise development in your area. This 'crusade' of yours just forces developers to demolish and rebuild in historic areas that are already developed (and have the least NIMBY opposition), like the Loop. Meanwhile, your part of town sits amidst seas of vacant and underutilized parking lots for no good reason at all.

Fact: highrises (and yes, tall ones) are inevitably going to be built in Chicago's central area. We all would rather see them go up on vacant lots than replacing historic structures. Fact: your neighborhood has plenty of vacant lots. Fact: you're against highrise development in your neighborhood. Result: developers look elsewhere, and ultimately demolitions are inevitable.

You're your own enemy on this one, buddy. If you want to save some of the loop's most historic structures than stop strutting around town with your anti-highrise shadow-study rhetorical nonsense, pretending you're some saint, and face up to reality. I see not the slightest flicker of altruism toward anything in how you're acting. Lets do everyone a favor and just let a good process complete itself--highrises are coming to the south loop and the sooner they do the better.

You're trying to block highrise development in your area.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I've never complained about or protested any building based on its FAR or its density or the number of units. I've certainly never complained about new buildings replacing surface parking lots.

(I have opined that I think Park Michigan is poor urban design (as distinguished from the architecture) and because its approval would make a mockery of the city planning process. But that's another thread.)

I testified against Legacy solely on the landmarks precedent issue. There are many ways to restore designated landmarks that don't involve facadomy or pile-driving an 80-story building through the block. The precedent set here makes matters worse because it works against ordinary adaptive reuse or restoration of small-scale buildings. What property owner will be satisfied to restore a Heyworth or Old Dearborn Bank Building as office space or hotel if they can instead build an 80-story condo on the site?

Let's suggest that developers fill up the parking lots before they resort to attacking designated landmarks.

Let's suggest that developers fill up the parking lots before they resort to attacking designated landmarks.

^ Uhh, they are trying--Park Michigan is a great example of that.

But wait, it casts too many shadows and it invades your precious vacant lot-ridden paradise. So I guess that one's out of contention too. I guess we'll just find another site then, perhaps one already occupied by an historic building.

Face the music, buddy. People like you are the contributers to this mess

now now boys lets play nice

I'm all for landmark designations and historic preservation. But, should we be forced to look at blighted, vacant buildings just because someone deemed them landmarks? Those buildings that are truly worth saving will, more often than not, find themselves being saved (Reliance Building, North American Building, etc.). I'm so sick of seeing filthy, disinvested property on Wabash Avenue that just sits there - devoid of purpose and devoid of life. The insides of all of those structures are useless in terms of preservation
I'm with you on this one Geoff. Those in disagreement need only google "Chicago landmark buildings" to see the overall quality of landmarked buildings in order to gain a clearer sense of what is wothy of preservation and what not.

Yeah, well, cities aren't theme parks. Still, landmarks don't exactly preserve themselves and we've lost plenty over the years through abuse, neglect & indifference. Plenty.

Facadectomies aren't a catchall for all situations, either. In the case of the Legacy, I'm all for it, because the older buildings at its base are notable primarily for their facades, which are being restored and preserved. This is a win-win. However, were Sullivan's Jewelers' Building next door to receive the same treatment, I'd cry foul.

What is especially eggregious, IMHO, is to see buildings of merit simply rot, burn or implode.

January 9, 2007

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1425/lgy1tt2.jpg

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3929/dsc0117ba6.jpg

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8808/dsc0121cg9.jpg

lookin good, thx for the pic's

^^

What an extremely cool photo!

Thank god. This is going to be interesting to watch grow. I think this building is sharp and have finally gotten around to completely check the thread. The more i saw the much much much more I like.. Can you guys please shake some of your style this way? Much appreciated, the city of New York.

According to SSP, this one is now finally officially under construction :cheers:

under construction

^ My 2 favorite words :cheers:

Can't wait to see this from Millenium Park

so anyone should change the title on Emporis

1-24-07, all credits go to SSP
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1622/835faf091jd.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/521/835faf0918fv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3589/fec099957yi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I didn't know until now how wide the western side of this building is going to be. I'm lovin it.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1563/legacywestfacezn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Oh the beautiful beautiful lattice of steel. Taken last night.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/412029181_1b58915078.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/412026761_133478f4b6.jpg

Yeah. SCB did an amazing job making this building seem razor-thin from Grant/Millennium Park, but fanning out at the back so as to provide enough sellable space to make it economical.

I didn't know until now how wide the western side of this building is going to be. I'm lovin it.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1563/legacywestfacezn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)i love the boxy type design

I don't think the renderings from different angles are compatible. For example, the following pics are from the southeast and northeast. The top of the building stays consistently thin along the east/west axis of the structure. However, the rendering from the west is totally conflicting with this. There are also other inconsistencies as well but I thought this was the most compelling.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/3861/legacycq1.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3713/lg3ia7.jpg

^ there are no inconsistencies, the building is wedge shaped in plan with the narrow edge of the wedge facing grant park.

To help visualize this, imagine the line created by the recessed balconies on the narrow side facing Grant Park going straight back. Now the roof is split into two. Now looking at the picture of the "back" of the building, you'll note how its wedge-shaped. The taller roof portion is then sort of like a right triangle with the "base" towards the Loop and the opposite angle towards Grant Park. Do you see it now. The renderings don't contradict themselves, but the interesting design sure makes them confusing!

I see how it can be wedge shaped but to me, the second pic I posted shows virtually no indication of this. I suppose it is similar to Waterview in the respect that it is wedge shaped but looks incredibley thin from some angles. In any event, this makes me like Legacy even more.

From today


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2832/dsc07431so6.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8417/dsc07432ki5.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7380/dsc07433tt7.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6849/dsc07434xl7.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6893/dsc07435fc8.jpg

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7233/dsc07436fp6.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8684/dsc07437hm0.jpg

03-13...
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/03/523969.jpg

03-17...
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/03/523980.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/03/523984.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/03/523985.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/03/523987.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/03/523988.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/03/523990.jpg

Terrific pictures. That is cool, I wondered how they would get those walls to stand. That looks so fragile. They better not fuck up and knock shit down accidentally.

That looks so fragile. They better not fuck up and knock shit down accidentally.

That actually happened in a San Antonio "behind the facade" reconstruction about 3 years ago -- although I'm not too sure how "accidental" it really was since they were fighting with preservationists about the project anyway.

Tower crane is going up.

I am really excited over this building, if nothing else, because of how it will enhance the already amazing views from Millennium Park.

June 28, 2007

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9868/dsc0129dj1.jpg

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2658/dsc0128xi6.jpg

^Really nice shots.

Here's a link to the Legacy thread in the World Development Forums if you're interested in putting them there:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=434492

^Really nice shots.

Here's a link to the Legacy thread in the World Development Forums if you're interested in putting them there:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=434492
Thanks for the link, i_am_hydrogen. I posted the pictures there too.

7-15-07

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/755/dsc08238xw9.jpg


http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8195/dsc08240xj8.jpg


http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/6919/dsc08241ju5.jpg


http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4145/dsc08242tp4.jpg

July 19, 2007

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2657/dsc0239gp1.jpg

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1120/legacyfl2.jpg

wow this one sprung up quick! thanks for the picture updates!

wow this one sprung up quick! thanks for the picture updates!

1. Walsh are the contractors

2. There was no basement or sub-basements that were excavated

3. Walsh are the contractors

i love this building. looks like things will start to pick up now

1. Walsh are the contractors

2. There was no basement or sub-basements that were excavated

3. Walsh are the contractors

so you like walsh huh? :cheers: I wish they would pick up the pace on th dan ryan construction

update? its been a month! I cant get over there until Wednesday

They're up at least 1 level above the street. Not too much to see. The back half is all parking ramp and core, while the front half is being merged with the fascade. There might be more to see in person, but that's all I saw while whizzing by on the El last Friday.

Yeah, it's just tough to get any decent view of this one so far. Between the existing facades that remain, the scaffolding that's supporting them and the el, it's near impossible to see much of anything. The best view is to head down the alley at the southeast of the site and peer in - but, even that doesn't get you too terribly much.

Either here or SSP, someone posted shots of the site from above, which were amazing.

August 22, 2007

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2020/dsc0222copytz8.jpg

I really think this building is going to add to the skyline more then people think. this is a good one.

I thought that this was somewhat interesting.

09/28/07
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5264/p1090716ms4.jpg

I'm looking forward to see this one start rising up above the other buildings.

I like it but it sorta looks like the waterview...

I like it but it sorta looks like the waterview...

How so? This is all glass...Waterview isn't. Waterview is a rectangle with a long thin trapezoid shooting out of that rectangle the vast majority of its heights. The tops don't even loof familiar.