Height: ~840 ft
Floor count: 76
Location: 375 East Wacker
Neighborhood: New Eastside
Construction end:
Architect: Arquitectonica
Developer: Magellan Development Group, Ltd.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5769/arquitectonicacolorno4.jpg

From BVictor @ SSP:

INSIDE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Unique opening planned for Lakeshore East mixed-use building

BY SUSAN DIESENHOUSE
Published May 9, 2007

A $400-million, 76-story mixed-use tower is being planned for Lakeshore East by Magellan Development LLC.

The striking design by Miami-based Arquitectonica features a 20-story opening through the building's midsection. The tower, which will rise at 375 E. Wacker Dr., has two intersecting components programmed to house a five-star hotel with 224 suites, as many as 671 condominiums and six stories of underground parking.

The sale of condominiums, priced from $500,000 to about $3 million, will start in August. By mid-2008, construction will get under way. The first residents are expected to move in two years later, said Jim Loewenberg, co-chief executive of Magellan.

So far at Lakeshore East, seven buildings with about 2,500 residential units have been built or are in construction. In total, the developer might put up 16 major buildings with about 5,000 units, Loewenberg said.

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

From BVictor @ SSP:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0705080693may09,0,1695623.story?coll=chi-business-utl


INSIDE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Unique opening planned for Lakeshore East mixed-use building

BY SUSAN DIESENHOUSE
Published May 9, 2007


A $400-million, 76-story mixed-use tower is being planned for Lakeshore East by Magellan Development LLC.

The striking design by Miami-based Arquitectonica features a 20-story opening through the building's midsection. The tower, which will rise at 375 E. Wacker Dr., has two intersecting components programmed to house a five-star hotel with 224 suites, as many as 671 condominiums and six stories of underground parking.

The sale of condominiums, priced from $500,000 to about $3 million, will start in August. By mid-2008, construction will get under way. The first residents are expected to move in two years later, said Jim Loewenberg, co-chief executive of Magellan.

So far at Lakeshore East, seven buildings with about 2,500 residential units have been built or are in construction. In total, the developer might put up 16 major buildings with about 5,000 units, Loewenberg said.

:nuts: Sounds A.MA.ZING!!! When oh when will we get to see this beauty???

Someone said there was a small render in the Trib. I have yet gotten a chance to go get one.

I scanned it as a .pdf, but I can't link the .pdf, so I put it on Yousendit.com. Can someone then find a way to post a shot of it?

http://download.yousendit.com/7D2368192E5F7794

Screenshot

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1121/lse2db5.png (http://imageshack.us)

^ Oh my stars! That's quite a hole. Interesting and unique.

Initial reaction: definetely need a color rendering to truly judge but not super impressed, maybe the color will help, just expecting a little more from this firm. Still cool but I think they are surely capable of pushing the envolope more, definetely on the conservitive side.

disappointing. hopefully a colored rendering can change that.

Wonder if your going to be able to see the Chicago Spire through this keyhole?

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9343/lse1157xq3.png

It is only one rendering, but I think this looks good. I like the art-deco evocation, if not reprise.

I think it looks better without a top connecting the two towers.:ohno: :ohno:

Ok, I have gotten over the void on MoMO not being big enough. I think this makes up for it. I'm leaning towards really liking it. Have to see more renders though.

Chicago gets another supertall? :uh: :scouserd:

..

Whoa, Not a good woah either.

I'm a miami guy and Have always been the greatest supporter of arquitectonica's stuff, hometown bias, but this is definetly one of there ugliest structures to date. Usually when they put a hole in a buliding its on the lower flowers (see atlantis,marquis, etc.) and its looks ok but that hole at the top is a cheap attempt to make the thing look intresting because without it would be a bland building, and whats up with the bottom? I hope they release a better rendering soon.

I really don't know what to think about this tower. The hole is very intriguing yet I think the design seems a little outdated. I will reserve my full judgement until they release more detailed color renderings.

Until I see a larger, clearer, color rendering I won't make a final judgement call on this project. From what I see so far, I like it; it's unique, yet still "Chicago"; context is key for any building, especially highrises. Obviously they all don't have to look like one another, but it's like a puzzle, where all the pieces look like they belong.

Has the possibility of being pretty nice, but just from that B&W scan it's hard to tell.

Yes. It looks like it would fit in with this 1930's Holabird and Roche scheme for Lakeshore East.

Thanks, Ardecila for photo:

You're welcome. As you can see, Holabird/Roche also envisioned a gateway over Field Boulevard (the two identical buildings flanking it), although a building actually spanning the roadway would have been seen as absurd. We can thank the Asian skyscraper boom for proving the concept of hole-in-skyscraper.

I like this building a lot. It has excellent proportions in a Miesian sort of way. But as other people have said, it will all come down to the materials: the glass, the spandrels/mullions, and I've heard whisperings of REAL limestone accents in places.

http://www.new-eastside.com/images/lse.jpg

It seems that this tower will occupy more land than what was planned. I think it was originally planned to be the middle tower facing east-west, but now it seems that the included structures on the sides take up the other tower sites. This unfortunately means that the Regetta's bland piece of shit wall will be forever visible! I hope I am wrong, but it seems to be the case.

I think it might be to the left of where you think it is.
Going from Columbus down to the Regatta, you have: 303 E Wacker, then Swissotel at 323. Field Drive is 400. I'm guessing the site just north of the Tides must be 375. I think there's room at 425 to hide that wall. At least I hope so. I can't imagine them leaving that.

There might not be enough room for the site at 400, however.

The more I look at this render I think that if the right materials are used, this could be a really, really cool building. I didn't like it much at first gander, but it's actually got great symmetrical form, and a blend of various types of architecture. I think this could be really awesome if it doen't get the crappy material treatment.

The building will be adjacent to the Swissotel.

It's certainly not the fluidity of form that I've come to expect from Arquitectonica. I think once we realize that it's clad in stainless rather than concrete (I SINCERELY HOPE I'M RIGHT WITH THAT ASSUMPTION) it will look much better. I do applaud them for an interesting programmatic distribution although I will remain very concerned about this project until I see some more images.

Chicago gets another supertall? :uh: :scouserd:

don't think it'll be over 1000 feet but i guess over 900

I like it, even with the "slot" its solid looking, with the artdeco feel.!!!

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5769/arquitectonicacolorno4.jpg

NewcitySkyline

76-story mixed use tower planned for Lakeshore East

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Chicago, IL, US - A 76-story mixed-use tower designed by Miami-based Arquitectonica is planned for Chicago’s prestigious Lakeshore East community, accompanying completed and under-construction towers developed by Magellan Development Group LLC, including: The Tides, The Lakeshore, The Regatta, 340 on the Park, The Parkhomes, and Aqua.

The new $400 million tower will be located at 375 East Wacker Drive and will house a five-star hotel with 224 suites, 671 condominiums and six stories of underground parking.

Read more at NewcitySkyline (http://www.newcityskyline.com/ArquitectonicaBuilding.html).

Here's the best news from the NewcitySkyline link, from the above posting:

"The façade will be mostly glass with limestone accents and will be lighted with LEDs that will change colors with the seasons."

The picture doesn't necessarily scream "mostly glass" to me, but at least there's not copious amounts of painted concrete!

:bash: I was JUST about to post that photo when you beat me to it.

Found this photoshopped version:

http://users.tkk.fi/~jtrysti/pics/Arquitectonica.jpg

Might look even more interesting. As said before, the art deco - style is nice.

The building will be adjacent to the Swissotel.


Right were the "island" green used to be.

..

I can not say anything good because so far every building in that area has been build cheaply. I just have to wait to see the final result

..

I understand your point. I just feel that the whole area is so packed with unatractive buildings so far and crowed. That it would have been better to build less fill in buildings and more WOW buildings it would have had a more balance feel. Now is just a mess .

Well, besides this proposal, and Aqua, all of the other structures are "infill" projects that aren't really intended to have any "Wow" factor. Hopefully, there will be at least one more interesting building in this development.

I respectfully disagree with you, at least concerning 340. I almost bought there, and now that I see the final product, I'm kicking myself. OK, so it's not a HUGE wow like Aqua, but it definitely has way more style and character than anything else finished in LSE.

If we're lucky, one of the as-yet unproposed towers along LSD will make a statement. I'm guessing everything else will (unfortunately) also be "filler".

I'm going to disagree with both of you. 340 is a beautiful building. The Lancaster is equally sexy - although many people overlook it because it's so diminuitive.

I pretty much hated this the Arquitectonica proposal when I first saw it, but, now I've looked a bit closer (now that we have a color rendering, at least) and noticed that there is alot more glazing than I originally believed there to be. It's actually, just a really bad rendering. They could have made the tower seem so much more transparent than it looks given its actual materiality. Also, learning that the building will be heavily lit at night makes a huge difference in my book - Chicago has lost so much of its glow since the intersection of the River and Michigan Avenue was darkened a few years ago - it will be nice to regain some of those theatrics.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5769/arquitectonicacolorno4.jpg
It seems that the front entrance starts at Upper Wacker Dr level. So would there be retailers or restaurants or sidewalk cafes be established at the first floor? Imagine having a cup of coffee or a bottle of beer in the midst of high-rise.

..

^ Lancaster, clearly the best so far, IMO. 340 is great, Tides is interesting, and the Arquitectonica is will be nice too, I think.

is to have a VIEW.


Soon Lakeshore East will be so crowded with high rises that most of the apartment views will be obstructed.


:ohno:

The purpose of living in a high rise...is to have a VIEW.

Soon Lakeshore East will be so crowded with high rises that most of the apartment views will be obstructed.

Actually, I believe the purpose of living in a high rise is to have DENSITY. Views are a by-product. But you're correct: if you're not facing the park or on a street side, you're going to be looking into someone else's living room.

Well, besides this proposal, and Aqua, all of the other structures are "infill" projects that aren't really intended to have any "Wow" factor. Hopefully, there will be at least one more interesting building in this development.


I'm wondering if the majority of the new buildings still in development for LSE will try to pull off some type of "WOW" factor. Maybe Lowenberg now realized that people actually give a shit as to what the outside of a building looks like. When AQUA was released, it got all types of praise and maybe he feels that that praise will somehow lead back to his door, like it was his idea, you know? Maybe he now realizes that "quality" achitecture actually sells, and at a premium none the less.


is to have a VIEW.


Soon Lakeshore East will be so crowded with high rises that most of the apartment views will be obstructed.


:ohno:

It's not as if this wasn't a known fact. When buyers go into the sales center they are told where new development wil go. That's the purpose of LSE Park, to offer a little breathing room. If you don't have a view of the river or lake, you have a view of an intimate park. If they have issues with their views being blocked, they should have chosen more wisely, or they can always move to oner of the newer towers with better views.

cool, i really like this one

Driving up LSD today... this tower will have a really amazing impact.

Flubnut, by definition, MWR is correct from a sales/marketing angle and the perspective of a buyer.

Most laypeople aren't aware of density as a "purpose".....only Planners & NIMBY's would know or care about that. However I guess the danger with too much density is losing character in our streetscapes.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of adding families to an urban setting, but what is the quality of the life lived within this kind of neighborhood? I don't know the answer. I just pose the question.

It seems to me that north Lake Shore drive has a good balance of residential density yet still maintains view corridors.

This packing-in of high rises is probably pretty common in most cities, but in office buildings. Does anyone out there know if other cities have built so many residential towers so close together - not counting the density fiasco of 1960's public housing?

Good talking to you!

Newcityskyline mentioned that "unofficially" the height of this one is 921 feet.

http://forum.newcityskyline.com/viewtopic.php?t=96

Great proposal.

Should look stunning coming up LSD

Flubnut, by definition, MWR is correct from a sales/marketing angle and the perspective of a buyer.

Most laypeople aren't aware of density as a "purpose".....only Planners & NIMBY's would know or care about that. However I guess the danger with too much density is losing character in our streetscapes.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of adding families to an urban setting, but what is the quality of the life lived within this kind of neighborhood? I don't know the answer. I just pose the question.

It seems to me that north Lake Shore drive has a good balance of residential density yet still maintains view corridors.

This packing-in of high rises is probably pretty common in most cities, but in office buildings. Does anyone out there know if other cities have built so many residential towers so close together - not counting the density fiasco of 1960's public housing?

Good talking to you!
Isn't most (or at least some) of that really dense high-rise residential in Asia 'market rate'?

Mike

MILLENIUM-ART-DECO

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5769/arquitectonicacolorno4.jpg

NewcitySkyline

76-story mixed use tower planned for Lakeshore East

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Chicago, IL, US - A 76-story mixed-use tower designed by Miami-based Arquitectonica is planned for Chicago’s prestigious Lakeshore East community, accompanying completed and under-construction towers developed by Magellan Development Group LLC, including: The Tides, The Lakeshore, The Regatta, 340 on the Park, The Parkhomes, and Aqua.

The new $400 million tower will be located at 375 East Wacker Drive and will house a five-star hotel with 224 suites, 671 condominiums and six stories of underground parking.

Read more at NewcitySkyline (http://www.newcityskyline.com/ArquitectonicaBuilding.html).

i like this design...when it be constructed

Nice hole, still chicagoesqe while bringing something new to the architecture there.

Momo's got a better hole.

Flubnut, by definition, MWR is correct from a sales/marketing angle and the perspective of a buyer.

Most laypeople aren't aware of density as a "purpose".....only Planners & NIMBY's would know or care about that. However I guess the danger with too much density is losing character in our streetscapes.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of adding families to an urban setting, but what is the quality of the life lived within this kind of neighborhood? I don't know the answer. I just pose the question.

It seems to me that north Lake Shore drive has a good balance of residential density yet still maintains view corridors.

This packing-in of high rises is probably pretty common in most cities, but in office buildings. Does anyone out there know if other cities have built so many residential towers so close together - not counting the density fiasco of 1960's public housing?

Good talking to you!

Personally, I think the density will be over-whelming, not because of the number of buildings, but how they are layed-out. (Lakeshore East is not Central Park).

Momo's got a better hole.How is that when Momo's hole is way undersized? At least this one will have a much stronger visual impact.

True, this one will be seen from afar, but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin. All the transfers are part of the aesthetic.

This one just appears to be a typical Architectonica gimic....they're kind of known for their one-liners in the profession.

True, this one will be seen from afar, but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin. All the transfers are part of the aesthetic.

This one just appears to be a typical Architectonica gimic....they're kind of known for their one-liners in the profession.
Perhaps more discriminating architectural/engineering commentary could be forthcoming by focusing less on the hole and more on the doughnot? :)

A hole in a building...is just a hole in a building "...but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin..." that is like hearing a 2nd year studio critic going on and on just wanting to hear themselves talking. Guess what Helmet, I bet you the same thing is being planned for with this building. Perhaps the hole as an architectural element isn't unique and neither are the structural elements that make it stand, but I think in this case the execution is unique, and that is reason enough to like the project; but just my opinion.

True, this one will be seen from afar, but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin. All the transfers are part of the aesthetic.

This one just appears to be a typical Architectonica gimic....they're kind of known for their one-liners in the profession.

And that's just it. MoMo's void is purely aesthetic. Arquitectonica's is not only aesthetic but contextual. It will function as a gateway to LSE.

Actually, the hole in Momo is functional from a developer standpoint. It meant the deal would work financially because there were more units to sell at a higher floors.

The site didn't have enough FAR to get the building tall enough, so Larry Booth took the FAR out of the lower part of the building as much as he could so he could make the building taller.

Nice talking to you!

We can thank the Asian skyscraper boom for proving the concept of hole-in-skyscraper.

What was the first holey skyscraper? Atlantis, 1982? Texas Commerce Tower, 1987? AMA is not until 1990.

Actually, the hole in Momo is functional from a developer standpoint. It meant the deal would work financially because there were more units to sell at a higher floors.

The site didn't have enough FAR to get the building tall enough, so Larry Booth took the FAR out of the lower part of the building as much as he could so he could make the building taller.

Nice talking to you!
Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

Actually, the hole in Momo is functional from a developer standpoint. It meant the deal would work financially because there were more units to sell at a higher floors.

The site didn't have enough FAR to get the building tall enough, so Larry Booth took the FAR out of the lower part of the building as much as he could so he could make the building taller.

Nice talking to you!

But that's a financial/economical function, not an architectural function. There's a difference.

Pop quiz: who designed the Atlantis in Miami? I'll give you 3 guesses, but you're only going to need one...

whats the latest on this one? still a go?

This project would look amazing! It is very unique....

did this ever show up in the informational article that spyguy always posts?

I was at an Aqua meeting today and someone had a concept rendering of the Arquitectonica building "C" (?), of the North elevation, just by chance on the table and I saw that the total height of the building (ground level entrance to rooftop) was listed as 1030'-4".
The floor number was too small to see from my perspective but that height number was very clear.

Sounds great! Of course, where are they measuring from? This is a problem for all buildings in the New Eastside because of the multi-level streets. If they're measuring from an Upper Wacker entrance, 921' seems reasonable. If they are measuring from ground level, then the height would be quite a bit higher (but not 110 feet!).

Is this APP yet? I saw another post under HIGHRISES say it was.

Is this APP yet? I saw another post under HIGHRISES say it was.

No. That was actually my fault. I was editing the thread title in the Highrises forum and accidentally put App instead of Pro. Sorry for any confusion.

Is this APP yet? I saw another post under HIGHRISES say it was.

It's doesn't need the same approvals that other towers need because it's a part of the whole Illinois Center Planned Development. So essentially yes, it's approved.

I was at an Aqua meeting today and someone had a concept rendering of the Arquitectonica building "C" (?), of the North elevation, just by chance on the table and I saw that the total height of the building (ground level entrance to rooftop) was listed as 1030'-4".
The floor number was too small to see from my perspective but that height number was very clear.so is this height still possible? just not confirmed?

But that's a financial/economical function, not an architectural function. There's a difference.If economic functions aren't architectural considerations, I don't know what is.

But that's a financial/economical function, not an architectural function. There's a difference.
Not to rehash an old argument, but, the hole is actually an architectural element as well. Trying to find a clever way around the site's low FAR was only half the story. It would have been next to impossible for them to sell the east units below the 11th floor because they faced (separated by only 10-15') directly into the adjacent parking garage. So, it was actually a pretty good solution given that no architect with any sort of a conscious could ever build a residential unit in such poor conditions.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/773/lsearqlargeshpgo6.jpg

Pretty.

I'm guessing this is just another rendering, for L.E. publicity purposes, and is in no way accompanied by any actual newsworthy updates?

I'm diggin the building to the left. Is that just place holder? or is it a concept?

It already exists and is known as "The Tides."

^^
??? No, the other left.:)

What I mean is: It's a really bad rendering of the Tides, vs. the Shoreham to the right, which is fairly true to the actual building. Go figure.

Hey, what ever happened the this project? I really like this building.

Hey, what ever happened the this project? I really like this building.

Well, in case you have been hibernating since late 2008, let me fill you in. The economy has gone down the drain, the real estate market has crashed, banks are not lending, millions have lost their jobs... do I need to continue?:bash:

BTW, a great way to begin your presence on this forum. Congrats!

Despite the poor economy, this building stands a decent chance of coming to fruition. The developer of Lakeshore East is highly prudent and has a strong track record of getting projects completed.

Despite the poor economy, this building stands a decent chance of coming to fruition. The developer of Lakeshore East is highly prudent and has a strong track record of getting projects completed.

But will it be in the same form? I really want this land to be devloped into an incredible skyscraper like this. So far, the Chicago riverfront has been developing into something amazing and it would be such a wasted oppourtunity if some dreck is put in this prime location.

Despite the poor economy, this building stands a decent chance of coming to fruition. The developer of Lakeshore East is highly prudent and has a strong track record of getting projects completed.

^ I would have to agree

Well, in case you have been hibernating since late 2008, let me fill you in. The economy has gone down the drain, the real estate market has crashed, banks are not lending, millions have lost their jobs... do I need to continue?:bash:

BTW, a great way to begin your presence on this forum. Congrats!

Wow, why the harshness?

I knew that the real estate market had crashed. All I was doing was asking if anyone knew anything recent on the project.

Oh, and by the way. Thanks for the great "welcome."

Wow, why the harshness?

I knew that the real estate market had crashed. All I was doing was asking if anyone knew anything recent on the project.

Oh, and by the way. Thanks for the great "welcome."

Probably just frustrated about the dry spell here. Look on the bright side, there is still skyscraper construction. Lincoln Park 2520 and Roosevelt University Tower is progressing along perfectly fine.

All I was doing was asking if anyone knew anything recent on the project.

I'm not sure why Mr. Sarcasm responded that way, but it was unnecessarily caustic. The regular Chicago forumers are very active, and a few in particular seem very well-connected in the industry. Any breaking news about projects, especially a project of this size and height, usually hits these boards within the day. So rest assured, if there's an update, you'll quickly see it here.

Welcome (in a nice way this time) to the forum!

I'm not sure why Mr. Sarcasm responded that way, but it was unnecessarily caustic. The regular Chicago forumers are very active, and a few in particular seem very well-connected in the industry. Any breaking news about projects, especially a project of this size and height, usually hits these boards within the day. So rest assured, if there's an update, you'll quickly see it here.

Welcome (in a nice way this time) to the forum!

I'm sorry if it was harsh, but I'm actually a big fan of this tower and recently heard an off the cuff comment about the Lakeshore East development. I’m subscribed to this thread, so when I saw the post I thought that some info had been made public. Instead I see someone who has just registered to ask what happened to the project.

It is pretty obvious to me that if the last post was back in December of 2008 (14.5 months ago) not much has happened since then. I’m pretty sure that if any snippet of info is released publicly it is going to find a way to this forum very quickly without having anyone to ask for it. From my point of view it was completely redundant posting.

Redundant posting or not, that was awful harsh. Also, automatically assuming that information would somehow filter to this thread is a bad assumption, as if everyone assumed that, no actual information would filter to this thread.

And anyway, I can't wait for the economy to get well enough to support a building like this, one of the most exciting ones for Lakeshore East.

Hey, what ever happened the this project? I really like this building.

Hi, JPits312 - welcome to the forum. Things at LSE are in hibernation, as others have indicated.

I agree that it'd be fun for Arquitectonica to do a project here.

So far, the Chicago riverfront has been developing into something amazing and it would be such a wasted oppourtunity if some dreck is put in this prime location.
Have you not seen Lakeshore East? Not a single interesting building aside from Aqua.

What needs to occur in that area is something that promotes street activity. Such dense housing with absolutely nothing to do within 4 blocks

^--- wholeheartedly agreed. We would love to live in LSE, but, there's NOTHING to do there and you're all but marooned unless you've got a car!

Marooned? Nothing to do? You're 2 blocks from the Loop, 3-4 blocks from every L line, and Michigan Ave/River North is right across the bridge. How spoiled are you? Do you need a bar/restaurant IN the building you live in?

^^+1...I think it's laziness.:ohno:

Marooned? Nothing to do? You're 2 blocks from the Loop, 3-4 blocks from every L line, and Michigan Ave/River North is right across the bridge. How spoiled are you? Do you need a bar/restaurant IN the building you live in?
The Loop is dead once the work day is over and that whole area reeks of tourist.

"3-4 blocks to every CTA line".... to go where? Oh, thats right, Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Lakeview, Bucktown, Greektown... the areas of the city that have a vibrant streetlife.

I never said you needed a bar in the building you live in... in fact thats you missing the point entirely. There just needs to be something, anything in that area to make it a NEIGHBORHOOD instead of just a housing development.

^^+1...I think it's laziness.:ohno:

Do you live in LakeShore East? If so... do you ever stay in that area for anything other than the park and your home? If not... have you ever gone to LSE to do anything other than look at buildings? I doubt it... because there is nothing there.

Like I just mentioned, Lake Shore East is too much like a large scale housing development and too little like a Neighborhood. Hell, the south loop has better street life.

Its not about laziness, its about creating a sense of community, a sense of place. Maybe the podium of Aqua will do some of that when its filled with tenants, but there needs to be more, much more. For instance, I live in Lakeview and find myself walking to retail stores, grocery, parks, restaurants and bars in the community 70% of the time I go out... and the other 30% of the time I go explore other communities throughout the city. I feel at home and connected to my own neighborhood besides just sleeping there... something I can guarantee not many people in LSE can say.

I always thought LSE was purposely designed and marketed as an urban oasis, so a "vibrant street life" isn't something I expect to see anyway. I don't think it's (relative) isolated location, sunken elevation and size help things either, if you're looking to attract foot traffic with non-LSE residents. And there are dangers with attempting to engineer street life: see Roosevelt Collection.

I guess I don't think every urban community (however you define it) has to have busy streets to actually FEEL like a community. Plenty of people are perfectly content meeting at the dog park or talking with other parents by the playground. You might find it boring and lifeless, but then why even worry about it? That's what Lincoln Park/Lakeview/South Loop are for. I've lived in all 3, and while they have great street life, it never was a requirement for feeling like a part of the neighborhood.

There just needs to be something, anything in that area to make it a NEIGHBORHOOD instead of just a housing development.

I would argue that a gigantic might-as-well-be-private park right outside your building counts as a huge "something" for most of the residents, especially if they have kids. I'm sure the grocery store, steak house and (hopefully) grade school will also add some extra life in the near future.

I was trapped in the park once. At the time, my only way out was Randolph, the opposite direction I wanted to go.

EDIT: Just remembered that I ended up getting trapped by the Regatta too, after I found my way from the park.

The design is fabulous and unique. I like it so much.

Actually this would look perfect right along the river and LSD where the spire was supposed to go... from a shot from the lake it would look like here's the entrance to the heart of the city (especially if it was lit up at night)

Really?...You had to bump this thread just to say that ?

This one is still alive:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Radar/Deal-Estate/June-2010/Magellans-James-Loewenberg-on-Aqua-and-Surviving-the-Downturn/

Magellan's James Loewenberg on Aqua and Surviving the Downturn
By Jeff Bailey

...Post-Aqua, is it back to standard-issue buildings at Lakeshore East?

No. It’s going to be tough to top that building. But we hired Arquitectonica, the Miami firm, and they designed a building that straddles the street. We were ready to go. Thank God we never started. A great market opportunity, in the next two or three years, after you get through the overhanging inventory.