daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 1st, 2007, 04:34 AM   #261
Chimaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

If there is anything I have learned in 56 years of living in Chicago, it's that controversial projects begin right AFTER a new four year term is in the bag.
Chimaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 1st, 2007, 04:57 AM   #262
Chimaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

I predict that four years from now, when this building is completed, Mr. Downtown will be Mr. Uptown, supporting Alderwoman Helen Schiller in her futile, "last hurrah" attempt at re-election.
Chimaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2007, 08:54 PM   #263
trvlr70
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 258
Likes (Received): 0

What's everyone's prediction about when or if this baby will begin constuction?
trvlr70 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2007, 12:25 AM   #264
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by trvlr70 View Post
What's everyone's prediction about when or if this baby will begin constuction?
Late 2007 or early 2008.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2007, 05:59 AM   #265
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by trvlr70 View Post
What's everyone's prediction about when or if this baby will begin constuction?
9-17-07
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2007, 07:19 AM   #266
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

thts rite before my birthday! What a present!
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2007, 09:02 PM   #267
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi649 View Post
9-17-07
I thought this has not gone to the plan commission yet?

My conservative prediction:

March Plan Commission - APPROVED
Preparation of Design Documents - 3-4 months to July
City Review - 4-5 months - November/December
Mobilization, Financing - 1-2 months

Start Construction - February 3, 2008 (1 year today)
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2007, 04:32 AM   #268
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The Park Michigan site is 36,794 sq ft. After taking various bonuses, maximum FAR--as shown in the PD application--is 19.5. That's only 717,000 sq ft--not 1 million.

More to the point, you claimed that the allowable FAR could not be reached with a 425-foot height limit. Obviously an (after bonus) FAR of 19.5 requires less than half that height.

As designed, the main tower has floorplates less than 7000 sq ft, meaning that nearly 20 percent of each floorplate is consumed by the core. A 30-story building with 20,000 sq ft floorplates would provide the same square footage and same number of units. If designed as a shallow T, with the wings an efficient 80-foot-wide double-loaded corridor, 888 could still keep their western views and it would shadow nothing but the Johnson Publishing building.


In Chicago? How, exactly?
That's the dumbest goddamn mutha'-******* idea this side of my ass...

The skyline from Congress to Roosevelt is so totally unbalanced as it is. With the Museum Park towers going up, we need highrises to connect the skyline together. If it isn't, it'll be like the unfinished ring of the boulevard system.

And besides, like I said before, and as was said yesterday at the Chicago 2020 meeting, the city didn't anticipate the explosive residential growth in the South Loop. Now developers are coming to the city with plans for buildings in the 80-story range, and the city is willing to work with them.

I'll get back to you on the FAR transfer. I'm not positive, but pretty sure. I believe that they can transfer the FAR from the YWCA property. If you think about it, it kind of makes sence. The building is landmarked. And nothing taller than what's already there will be built directly on that site. Seeing as the developer is buying both parcels, and both parcels are apart of the same development, when the PD is drawn up, why not ask if they can use that additional zoning far and transfer if to this side.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2007, 05:32 AM   #269
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
I believe that they can transfer the FAR from the YWCA property.
Yes, that's part of their parcel. I thought you meant transfer FAR from somewhere else.

Some people have raised the objection that this technique is "double-dipping" by the developer, who gets an FAR bonus for restoring the YWCA and gets the FAR of the landmark itself.

You still haven't explained why a 350- or 425-foot height limit is insufficient to accommodate a 19.5 FAR.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2007, 08:09 AM   #270
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^Tall and thin is in. Wide and boxy is out. The city backs the former, so for you and your ilk I suspect it may be a futile battle. You already know that wide buildings are much more oppressive and allow far less sunlight on the street. Not to mention, Chicago has tons of big boxes already. Im sure the city prefers this alternative to maximize square footage while giving residents better views.

Anyway, as has been stated numerous times, the loop skyline will eventually connect with the museum park buildings. This is a terrific opportunity to do that. The area between congress and roosevelt is sorely lacking in height and makes the skyline looks incomplete. And as we all know, Chicago's skyline is one of the most famous aspects of the city, so you cant underestimate the imporance of projects like these. Who are you to want to limit height in an area that practically screams for it?

I simply dont understand what your big objection is here, it cant just be the supposed 'shadows' on grant park, that is too weak. Even if I was a NIMBY I still dont think I would understand it. Do you have a personal stake involved somehow, like is your view going to be altered? Tons of people want to live in that area, and likely will continue to move into it, and its great. Park 1000 will probably happen, and more projects will follow. You apparently live downtown, I say feckin deal with it.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2007, 08:13 AM   #271
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge View Post
Yeah, my view was recently obstructed by several highrises being built on the east side of Michigan Ave, down in the South Loop. My unit is on the 12the floor. I use to be able to see Soldier Field and Lake Michigan. I don't mind though, I would rather see tons of highrises all around me.
You're cool. I want to live in the south loop too, once I can afford it. I like seeing buildings and street life, and that area is just starting to realize some of its potential. Hopefully there's more people with the same outlook down there.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2007, 08:24 AM   #272
Latoso
C.B.P.
 
Latoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,189
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi649 View Post
9-17-07
That is my birthday and would be an awesome present!
__________________
LATOSO
C.B.P. - Citizens for Better Planning

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die. - Daniel Burnham
Latoso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2007, 03:49 AM   #273
NearNorthGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 502
Likes (Received): 4

From one of the above posts:
"The Michigan half of the block is controlled by draft landmark restrictions, which recommend a 264-foot limit for the full footprint of any building, with only towers (floorplates substantially less than the full footprint) allowed as tall as 425 feet.
The Wabash half of the block is controlled by the Near South Community Plan, adopted in 2004, which says on page 61: "The suggested building heights [below] are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments. Wabash Avenue District. Higher intensity development could be permitted along both sides of the corridor, provided it does not detract from the image and character of the Michigan Avenue Development District. 350 feet."


As one who has been involved with many preservation fights over the years, including the fight over the Historic Michigan Boulevard District, I just want to point out something about building height in this area.

Specifically, the most assertive, aggressive, pro-preservation citizens group in town, Preservation Chicago, made an intentional decision to NOT advocate for reduced building heights in this area. In other words, this group apparently feels that limiting heights of new buildings in this area does NOT serve the cause of historic preservation and does not harm the character of the Michigan Avenue Streetwall.

I am not saying that such a position should be the gospel truth. I just want to make the point that the "harming the character of the area" argument, when used to shrink the Park Michigan or similar projects, is certainly NOT the position of many preservationists.
NearNorthGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 06:10 AM   #274
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Yes, that's part of their parcel. I thought you meant transfer FAR from somewhere else.

Some people have raised the objection that this technique is "double-dipping" by the developer, who gets an FAR bonus for restoring the YWCA and gets the FAR of the landmark itself.

You still haven't explained why a 350- or 425-foot height limit is insufficient to accommodate a 19.5 FAR.
Don't forget to add in the bonuses.

There's the setback bonus
Affordable housing bonus
Landscaping
I believe there's a bonus is you contribute to public transit or public schools.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 06:14 AM   #275
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

19.5 is the FAR after bonuses.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 07:04 AM   #276
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
19.5 is the FAR after bonuses.
Okay.


Then I guess you'd have to ask the developers or the city. All I remember is that they said as of right, they could be a structure of at least 1 million sq. ft at that site, but what they are proposing is between 850,000 - 950,000 sq ft. That is what was said at the meeting last summer.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2007, 10:41 AM   #277
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

don't expect this building to come before the plan commission in March, because it isn't.

Tonight at the 2nd Ward Aldermanic forum, it was mentioned that there will be a meeting on the project MARCH 14 at Grace Place.

I can't believe that the current alderman is wavering on this project. Back in June, she seemed to be in full support of the tower. Tonight she said that "it's too tall". She even compared it to the Sears Tower, which made me scoff out loud. This building has 20% the volume of Sears. I don't know what the **** she's talking about, or what's going on, but it appears that we might have a fight on our hands.

One of the questions at the meeting was about 830 South Michigan. I liked David Askew's response the best. He said the South Loop plan needs to be revised or reviewed to meet the needs of the changing community.

I hope that some of you on this forum will attent the meeting to support the project. Unfortunately some of the people on this forum are all talk and no action. Practice what you preach, get off your ass and this forum for once, and come out to help us support the projects that you all claim to like so much.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2007, 07:07 AM   #278
NearNorthGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 502
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
don't expect this building to come before the plan commission in March, because it isn't.

Tonight at the 2nd Ward Aldermanic forum, it was mentioned that there will be a meeting on the project MARCH 14 at Grace Place.

I can't believe that the current alderman is wavering on this project. Back in June, she seemed to be in full support of the tower. Tonight she said that "it's too tall". She even compared it to the Sears Tower, which made me scoff out loud. This building has 20% the volume of Sears. I don't know what the **** she's talking about, or what's going on, but it appears that we might have a fight on our hands.

One of the questions at the meeting was about 830 South Michigan. I liked David Askew's response the best. He said the South Loop plan needs to be revised or reviewed to meet the needs of the changing community.

I hope that some of you on this forum will attent the meeting to support the project. Unfortunately some of the people on this forum are all talk and no action. Practice what you preach, get off your ass and this forum for once, and come out to help us support the projects that you all claim to like so much.
I will be there on March 14th at Grace Place. Please post the time and address so that everyone can make it there. Great work!
NearNorthGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2007, 08:05 AM   #279
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by NearNorthGuy View Post
I will be there on March 14th at Grace Place. Please post the time and address so that everyone can make it there. Great work!
^ Great to know you'll be going, NNG
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2007, 02:03 AM   #280
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The Park Michigan site is 36,794 sq ft. After taking various bonuses, maximum FAR--as shown in the PD application--is 19.5. That's only 717,000 sq ft--not 1 million.

More to the point, you claimed that the allowable FAR could not be reached with a 425-foot height limit. Obviously an (after bonus) FAR of 19.5 requires less than half that height.

As designed, the main tower has floorplates less than 7000 sq ft, meaning that nearly 20 percent of each floorplate is consumed by the core. A 30-story building with 20,000 sq ft floorplates would provide the same square footage and same number of units. If designed as a shallow T, with the wings an efficient 80-foot-wide double-loaded corridor, 888 could still keep their western views and it would shadow nothing but the Johnson Publishing building.


In Chicago? How, exactly?

You,ve been taking the Net Site Area instead of the Gross Site Area.

Gross Site Area = 56,751 x Max FAR (19.50) = 1,106644.50 Sq Ft.

As of right, the developers could construct a 1,106644.50 Sq Ft Building.

The broject that they are proposing is only about 715,000 Sq Ft.

Last edited by BVictor1; February 15th, 2007 at 02:26 AM.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu