Chicagoist: Chicago River Gets Another Skyscraper

Vouchey

Mon, 24 May 2004 17:00:27 -0600

No residential in Sears. The tallest today would be John Hancock, then it'll be Trump. But, don't count on 111 Wacker -- residential has been booming downtown, Lake Shore East (http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/) calls for 20,000 new residents in 12 years, so there's lots of competition. As for the Fourth Pres. development, there hasn't even been a community hearing on that, let alone an approved planned development by the city. That'll be a long time in coming.

Steve

Fri, 21 May 2004 16:04:50 -0600

Rachelle: Ah. I missed the "residential" part. No, the Sears Tower has no residential use. Everybody's got a spin...

Steve

Fri, 21 May 2004 16:01:52 -0600

ChiTown MoFo: maybe if you refrained from using "interweb" (whatever that is), other people's language usages might not bother you so much. But in this case, it's not likely going to change. Chicagoist is a new publication (notice the "beta") from the folks who brought us Gothamist, and style is already in place.

ChiTown MoFo

Fri, 21 May 2004 11:55:06 -0600

Hey, this is an awesome addition to the interweb! I grew up in Evanston, but I no longer live in the area, so it is great to get news from "home." Any chance the Chicagoist writers can stop referring to themselves as "Chicagoist"? That is pretty annoying. "I" seems to be most appropriate, since presumably there is only one author per post, but I suppose "we" would be acceptable. Thanks, and keep up the great work.

rachelle

Fri, 21 May 2004 10:31:20 -0600

Does the Sears Tower have residential occupancy? The Sun Times reported that it was the third tallest residential building.

Steve

Fri, 21 May 2004 10:20:28 -0600

You say that it'll be #3 behing Handcock and Trump... but the Sears Tower is taller than all three. So does that make it #4? And what's with these developers? Who wants to make a brand-new also-ran? Trump should get his nads back and make his tower the tallest in the world.

Jeremy

Fri, 21 May 2004 09:29:10 -0600

Gotcha. I wasn't sure if I was really confused or hungover or what, but that just didn't sound right to me. ;)

rachelle

Fri, 21 May 2004 09:22:22 -0600

Thanks, Jeremy. Actually, I was thinking about this more on my morning commute and wanted to double-check that again, but you beat me to it. This article in the Tribune is where I got the info about the Waterview being located next to the church. I guess the location changed since the article was written.

Jeremy

Fri, 21 May 2004 09:13:06 -0600

First off - I LOVE Chicagoist! Was (am) a big fan of Gothamist and wished we had one for Chicago. Great stuff! That being said -- 111 W. Wacker is nowhere near Fourth Pres. Fourth Pres isn't on the river, it's right across the street from the Hancock building, nearly a mile up Michigan Avenue.