New Renderings have been revealed by Goettsch Partners for a mixed-use Halsted Landing Development. Onni Group’s ambitious multi-phase project is set to impact the western skyline with the construction of four mixed-use towers. Featuring a combined total of 2,451 residential units, the development will includes ground-floor retail spaces, 1,950 underground parking spots and 2,451 bike parking spaces.
Rendering of Halsted Landing from Goettsch Partners
The renderings depict three towers: one standing at 650 feet, another at 600 feet, and the third at 500 feet. In the first phase, a 600-foot tower will be erected at 700 W Chicago Ave, accommodating 540 residential units and extending the riverwalk by 400 feet. The second phase involves a 500-foot tower with a total of 382 units, along with a 150-foot commercial tower. Lastly, the final phase features a 600-foot tower and a 550-foot tower, offering a combined total of 1146 residential units alongside major enhancements to the riverwalk.
Rendering of Halsted Landing from Goettsch Partners
Rendering of Halsted Landing from Goettsch Partners
Rendering of Halsted Landing from Goettsch Partners
The plan is scheduled to undergo review by the Chicago Plan Commission later this month, followed by approvals sought from the Committee on Zoning and ultimately the City Council
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Just an insane amount of parking.
Way too much parking. Chop the parking in half for the whole development.
Also kinda surprised that this Goettsch design is so… subpar. I guess it’ll be a shiny new tower on the river amidst (hopefully) better architecture.
That is an insane amount of parking. But I actually like the overall aesthetic. Not too crazy and not to boring. Not to mention all those added units hopefully will put a dent in our housing shortage. Hope they break ground soon.
Good height, agree it’s too much parking but it’s what the Alderman want.
With way too much parking , and with all the parking underground , why the podia ? They make mediocre architecture look even worse .
This site DEMANDS creative and exemplary buildings , not burdened by podia .
The CTA should get the attention it deserves, and parking in its entirety should be no more than 800 spaces for such a small area .
I appreciate the correct plural for podium.
Someone needed to point that out 😛
Indeed, way too much. It makes me wonder why and who’s paying for all of this. A recent Block Club article put the figure in Chicago for each parking space at $50,000 and perhaps more for underground.
That’s about $100 million just for storing cars. It literally adds nothing to the tax base nor the vibrancy of the city. In fact, it does the opposite – costs the city money through all the externalities of cars.
I think it’s time for a car tax in the city that should go towards building more housing.
I wish there was a city policy that would allow the money that the city is mandating to be allocated towards parking to be allocated to the CTA instead. This would promote a better funded CTA with more/better transit options and not more cars, congestion and a further auto oriented city. Think of it as a transit minimum in lieu of a parking minimum.
I’m all for it. But don’t forget, this is America, land of the “free!” We make sure our elected officials do nothing for the common good so we can all race to the bottom “privately.”
As a resident right across the river, definitely echo what everyone else is saying about WAY too much parking. I can’t imagine what adding 1,950 cars to the area will do. Especially with so much of the traffic in the area being bottlenecked (to the north and east by single-lane bridges, and to the south and west by underpasses under the Metra track that reduce traffic to one lane then widen again). Congestion is going to be a nightmare without better public transit options and infrastructure improvements happening first.
There’s only one ‘a’ and one ‘e’ in Chicago’s Halsted Street. Some other places spell it the way it’s spelled in this article’s title.
Has anyone every instituted a congestion tax in the form of extra tax per parking spot in new developments, with the rate per spot going up as the ratio of spots to units goes up in a building?
Most people in the city with cars do not drive every day and if they do, they will likely change their minds after experiencing Halsted! I’ve seen thousands of units completed near me and it hasn’t impacted traffic one bit.
That may be true, but is that worth a $100 million price tag for parking for this development that’ll be tacked right on to the price of every one of these units? This is how housing becomes a lot more expensive and unaffordable. Parking is far from a free lunch whether the cars get used or not.
All the people complaining about too much parking… what city are you living in? Even my dog sitter won’t take L anywhere because of the crime and the crowd there.. do you expect people living in these kind of buildings to ? Chicago has a lot of work to do before public transportation can be utilized as it should be in any major city. And in the meantime I’ll choose traffic over L any time of the day.
I take the L.
I miss being able to take the L whenever I wanted instead of needing to plan when the train will MAYBE arrive.
For those that don’t take the L for the sake of safety, my only justification is smoke from weed and cigarettes is terrible for asthma and those allergic. As of recent, so glad that expensive security from Lightfoot has skyrocketed smoking in public spaces. In terms of it not being a system worthy for a nation of our wealth, the L is truly disgusting and how the hell do we not have doored entrances at stations protecting the tracks?
Unless you are spoonfed your entire personality from media networks disguised as news, I’ve still yet to witness any shenanigans on a station, train, or bus. Maybe I’m oblivious, but not attracting attention certainly helps.
The L definitely has some room for improvement (headways, reliability, security, cleanliness), but some of that would be better with more people and eyes on the trains. Some of that will improve as there’s growing outcry for change, including advocacy for fixing these issues, leadership replacement (#FireDorvalCarter), bike lanes, BRT, and other infrastructure that are unquestionably more efficient at moving people than private vehicles are. But I think it’s short-sighted to not build for a future where we’ve mostly tackled our current issues. We can look around the world and see that the most successful urban spaces that’d we want to mimic prioritize public transportation and pedestrian experience above cars. These buildings (and parking spots) will be built to last for over 100 years, might as well do it right.
We live in Chicago, and want less traffic, noise and more room for humans! Yes plenty of bougie ppl and ppl who don’t like poor or associating with black and brown ppl dont use the train . But plenty of Chicagoan’s, feel safe taking the L every day. Constant misinformation plays into why many ppl are resistant to taking the train as well. Judging by you talking about your dog sitter and lack of knowledge about our Public transportation , I assume you have means, ands are one of the bougie ppl I mentioned.
I use public transport daily. Traversing that neighborhood is equally miserable in a car or aboard the already overburdened Halsted and Chicago bus lines. It’s hard to imagine what this development will do to existing congestion without city intervention to expand transit options. The closest L is a ~10min (brisk) walk to the west.
How many charging stations?
Most developments add a premium for parking. The spaces don’t need to be paired with a unit. Valet parking is an option, this is what I have. With public transport, bikes, Uber. Zip cars and Avis there is no reason to design to a last century paradigm. I don’t own a car. $350 a month parking, $250 insurance (thanks Brandon, car theft is our new pandemic) $700 lease payment? It’s not worth it.
Halsted will no longer be a viable thoroughfare…. Also I MUCH preferred the previous much smoother and curvey renderings….this one is just so, so boxy. Ugh, sigh.
These are the first renderings, I believe. The others were just concepts, but you may also be thinking of the other tower in the same mix of towers. One of them was much curvier.
I think you are thinking of Halsted Point on Goose Island. this is right across the river and called Halsted Landing. I know, they need better names.
parking is for the cars that the residents in this new area will bring-Its not going to be micro college kid rentals. Most folks have vehicles-thats just the way it is. Better that the vehicles have parking that all on the streets int that area.
No one seems to think about parking beyond the totally antiquated thought of “oh all those people will take up the parking in front of my house”. First of all no they won’t, many people who look to live in cities these days do so because of the convenience of public transportation.
Second of all, this is going to cause MAJOR traffic problems. Haltsed Landing plus Halsted Point right across the river on Goose Island are going to have over 3k parking spots. Halsted going south into the West Loop is already ridiculously backed up, this is going to make the area streets unusable even for buses. Oh and i just remembered there is going to be a casino just south of this. The whole neighborhood with that many cars is going to be gridlock for 12 hours a day. THIS PARKING REQUIREMENT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.