[schwerve]

as I have stated repeatedly, the area north of Lake Street has been designated for residential development, not offices. If you read the whole plan you will see that the West Loop that is intended for office expansion is between JACKSON AND LAKE, NOT NORTH OF LAKE!!!!!!!!!

You did look at the zoning map when you moved into the neighborhood right? And you saw this site has been zoned DC-16 for very high density office (not even mixed-use...commercial use only) for a long time... right? That a high-FAR office building would be built here was a foregone conclusion and very intentionally planned by the city as part of the downtown core.

please go away.

[WestLoopResident]

That's right Schwerve, truth hurts. Next time you quote from the plan maybe you should take the time to read it!

[schwerve]

That's right Schwerve, truth hurts. Next time you quote from the plan maybe you should take the time to read it!

yeah quoting a general statement sentence from a conceptual planning document which has barely been touched since it was written is so much more truthful than the actual historical zoning, keep holding that factual high ground.

[WestLoopResident]

Yeah, that's the kind of funny thing about plans that are passed by the City Council. People actually think it might mean something.

[emathias]

In support of my position I thought I would take the time to post the District Recommendations from the City of Chicago's Planning Department for the Central Area Plan.

"The office core will expand into the West Loop between Lake Street and Jackson Boulevard. The West Loop will accommodate more than 30% of the anticipated growth in the Central Area’s office market. To provide expansion room for the growing office core, the West Loop will be up-zoned to permit highdensity office buildings comparable to those in the Central Loop. The West Loop will clearly be a business district, but the mix of uses will shape its character. While high-density office development will be the focus of new construction, the district’s residents and visitors will continue to add to its vitality. Well over 6,000 people currently live in and near the Loop between State Street and the Kennedy Expressway, with most living west of the Chicago River in areas such as the Fulton River District and the Jackson Loft District. Mixed-use buildings that combine residential, hotel or other uses with offices will be added. The residential neighborhoods immediately north and south of the West Loop office district will reinforce the vitality that this diversity of uses brings to the Central Area." ...

Well, instead of harassing us, why not spend the effort lobbying for the West Loop Transportation
Center (WLTC) mentioned in the next section that would benefit not just you, but the whole region?

[dagobert]

I hope that wrabbit doesn't mind me posting his picture, but this really goes to show how insanely residential the area is...
... in fact I think I see a driveway on the rightside of the picture and in the drive way we can see a few SUVs & a minivans. Ahhhh, an attack on the suburbs, my driveway will be eaten up to make way for an office highrise. Where will I park my Chevy Suburban now????

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/3111259861_cfdaa31d1f_b.jpg

[Taft]

That's right Schwerve, truth hurts. Next time you quote from the plan maybe you should take the time to read it!

Nowhere in the plan, or in the text you quoted, is there any indication that the area south of Jackson or North of Lake would be exclusively residential. While the preponderance of buildings there will likely be residential, the plan does not preclude office buildings and that fact is reflected in the zoning for this and other sites. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a fair amount of office space north of Lake already (see the corner of Fulton and Jefferson).

Given this sites prominence on the river and its proximity to other large office buildings (the CBD, Merch Mart, Boeing Building, etc.) I find the zoning very appropriate. I would be interested, however, in knowing the zoning history. My guess is that the DC-16 zoning for high density office was a very old decision or that it was an upgrade from a lower density office zoning. Anyone have access to that history so we can put this silly argument to bed?

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

And, once again I will state that I am not worried about my view so quit trying to use that against my position. Again, if this development was residential rental or condo I would be in favor of it. Got it!

That's good. Short of another Trump Tower (which could be decades away), I still don't see a residential path towards developing this site with both (1) drastically improved public amenities such as the riverfront park, continued riverwalk, decking over the Metra tracks, and (2) high-quality architecture and construction. If this were restricted to residential, I'd expect a large crap-pile with zero public amenities, or perhaps an even larger TIF contribution to provide any such amenities. I can certainly see merit in wanting more residential to enhance night/weekend vibrancy, but part of acheiving overall 24/7 vibrancy is increased intensity of all types of land uses, including office (which just so happens to contribute way more property tax revenue - not a nefarious consideration by any means, if you have an opportunity for drastically increasing tax revenues there'd be better be a very compelling reason for denying it). Your neighborhood is already in the process of getting ~2,000 new residential units from the K-Station development, along with the new Jewel there. Perhaps now it's time for some more office? Further, if any new office space is to be added to your neighborhood (work with me here for a second), wouldn't this proposed site be the absolute best place for it?

[the urban politician]

Why are we still arguing whether this building should be built?

It's over now, the zoning is there. At this point I"m just waiting to see if financing takes place.

[Chicago Shawn]

Nowhere in the plan, or in the text you quoted, is there any indication that the area south of Jackson or North of Lake would be exclusively residential. While the preponderance of buildings there will likely be residential, the plan does not preclude office buildings and that fact is reflected in the zoning for this and other sites. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a fair amount of office space north of Lake already (see the corner of Fulton and Jefferson).

Given this sites prominence on the river and its proximity to other large office buildings (the CBD, Merch Mart, Boeing Building, etc.) I find the zoning very appropriate. I would be interested, however, in knowing the zoning history. My guess is that the DC-16 zoning for high density office was a very old decision or that it was an upgrade from a lower density office zoning. Anyone have access to that history so we can put this silly argument to bed?

Taft

The DC class of zoning is a new creation from the 2004 zoning code re-write. The purpose of D districts was to give downtown its special type of zoning, which is not found elsewhere city, and that includes your neighborhood WLR. The D districts though were overlayed onto existing zoning classes which were allowing the same types of density, uses and height. This site in particular, I believe was zoned B6-7 before 2004, which was intended for downtown office buildings. Furthermore, in many respects the new zoning code is more restrictive than previous code, particularly with lowered PD thresholds (a certain unit count, height or size triggering the requirement for the PD process).

Long story short, even before the new zoning code rewrite, this site was intended to be office. The Residences at Riverbend PD was approved to include two towers, with the second one being an office building. Since the second tower never came as the original PD intended, a new PD was created for the south end of the site, with this new design.


Furthermore, WLR, according to your post, you would have no problem with this tower if it was built across the street (south of Lake Street). Really? Are you really making a huge fuss over 100 feet of distance? Would you not oppose this tower if it was built right in front of the old Butler Brothers Warehouses?

[Taft]

The DC class of zoning is a new creation from the 2004 zoning code re-write. The purpose of D districts was to give downtown its special type of zoning, which is not found elsewhere city, and that includes your neighborhood WLR. The D districts though were overlayed onto existing zoning classes which were allowing the same types of density, uses and height. This site in particular, I believe was zoned B6-7 before 2004, which was intended for downtown office buildings. Furthermore, in many respects the new zoning code is more restrictive than previous code, particularly with lowered PD thresholds (a certain unit count, height or size triggering the requirement for the PD process).

Long story short, even before the new zoning code rewrite, this site was intended to be office. The Residences at Riverbend PD was approved to include two towers, with the second one being an office building. Since the second tower never came as the original PD intended, a new PD was created for the south end of the site, with this new design.


Excellent info! Thanks a lot. So we have established that this lot was zoned for high-density office before the rezoning of 2004.

Further, I did some research into what the Central Area Plan actually lays out and this parcel falls into the "expanded loop" as defined by the plan. Take a look:

http://matthewtrumbell.com/misc/CAP.png

This is a screen capture taken from the CAP document (find the full document here (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Planning+And+Development%2fContent&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886455&entityName=Planning+And+Development&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=536898168&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept)) The image on the left shows the "current loop" in red and the image on the right is the expanded loop under the CAP. The expanded loop is clearly designated as "high-density mixed use." Note that the site of 444 W Lake clearly falls within the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.

Further, the CAP also lays out the following principles (emphasis mine):

•Strengthen the Loop as a single, dense, walkable office core that is
well-served by transit
•Emphasize office, hotels & related commercial uses in the West Loop
and the Central Loop
•De-emphasize residential development in the Central Loop and the
West Loop
•Promote mixed-use, cultural use and innovative adaptive reuse in the East Loop
•Promote historic preservation throughout the Loop
•Develop active retail and commercial services at the street level
•Emphasize the pedestrian environmentExpansion of the high-density office core west of the river offers many advantages:


To sum up:

This site has been zoned as high density office for a long time (pre-dating plans for this specific building).
This site clearly falls in the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.
The CAP also clearly tries to emphasize commercial high-density buildings in the west and central portions of the loop.
Therefore a high-density commercial building at 444 W Lake is inline with the goals of the CAP.


Man, I spent WAY too much time on this. However, this should put to rest any griping about "not following plans."

Taft

[Tom In Chicago]

Excellent info! Thanks a lot. So we have established that this lot was zoned for high-density office before the rezoning of 2004.

There was never any doubt. . . doesn't anyone remember the SOM Levy/RiverBend proposal? Four towers and a river-front promenade. . .

. . .

[X-fib2]

Interesting. Since Wolf Point is virtually across the river from River Pointe does this mean that the proposed supertall, assumed to be a residential or multi-use development, is doomed by zoning irregardless of the state of the market?

[lawfin]

Excellent info! Thanks a lot. So we have established that this lot was zoned for high-density office before the rezoning of 2004.

Further, I did some research into what the Central Area Plan actually lays out and this parcel falls into the "expanded loop" as defined by the plan. Take a look:

http://matthewtrumbell.com/misc/CAP.png

This is a screen capture taken from the CAP document (find the full document here (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Planning+And+Development%2fContent&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886455&entityName=Planning+And+Development&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=536898168&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept)) The image on the left shows the "current loop" in red and the image on the right is the expanded loop under the CAP. The expanded loop is clearly designated as "high-density mixed use." Note that the site of 444 W Lake clearly falls within the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.

Further, the CAP also lays out the following principles (emphasis mine):


To sum up:

This site has been zoned as high density office for a long time (pre-dating plans for this specific building).
This site clearly falls in the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.
The CAP also clearly tries to emphasize commercial high-density buildings in the west and central portions of the loop.
Therefore a high-density commercial building at 444 W Lake is inline with the goals of the CAP.


Man, I spent WAY too much time on this. However, this should put to rest any griping about "not following plans."

Taft

I wonder if in 20-40 years we may be speaking of an expanded, expanded loop. Is there a point in the future that the designation of the loop as THE cbd becomes anachronistic? 300 Lasalle, 353 clark, possible office component on wold point, some other commercial uses north of the river.

Is there a point where we stopping thinking strictly of the loop and more of an expanded downtown say extending from north avenue south (for example)?

[Chicago Shawn]

^That would be the definition of the Central Area, which stretches to North Avenue, Halsted and the Stevenson Expressway. This is the area defined as downtown by the City. The Loop is just the core office market, the central business district. As we all know, downtown Chicago has grown to be much more than that; and has a different environment than many other US cities which have an office core downtown and not much else. You can see a rough outline of the central area on that map, shown as a gray line. Although, that map only shows the boundary as far north as Division. In reality, the central area does go all the way up to North and Halsted.

[emathias]

I wonder if in 20-40 years we may be speaking of an expanded, expanded loop. Is there a point in the future that the designation of the loop as THE cbd becomes anachronistic? 300 Lasalle, 353 clark, possible office component on wold point, some other commercial uses north of the river.

Is there a point where we stopping thinking strictly of the loop and more of an expanded downtown say extending from north avenue south (for example)?

First, we should be so lucky since that would require very strong economic growth to attain.

Second, I actually would hope that the central area would be filled out and that instead of expanding the office core in the Loop, we might bolster transit to/from a couple other areas and have "satellite cores." Maybe one near 63rd, either by Hyde Park or a little west by the Dan Ryan, one in Ford City by Midway, and one near Jefferson Park. Tying those together with transit would motivate the build-out of several long-talked about, never started transportation projects benefiting the whole city, as well as providing alternative sites to companies that would like to be in the city, but not the Loop (for whatever reason).

I think doing that would greatly enhance the city as the core of the region and if done right would compete more with places like Downers Grove and Schaumburg than with the Loop.

[budman]

I have lived a block away from this site for 10 years and I was ecstatic when this project was announced. If you bought here expecting this area to become solely residential you are an idiot. This is not a historically residential area (at least in the last 50-75 years). Living in a mixed use, vibrant, urban environment is exciting and stimulating. I purposely avoided the West Loop because I did not want to live in a residential wasteland. Much of the Fulton River District does not fall within the confines of the West Loop anyway. The West Loop really ends at Lake Street (which, by the way, is industrial).

[budman]

Thank God that this ill-conceived development will most likely fall apart. As those of us that live in the "neighborhood" have thought for so long, putting a 50-story office tower smack dab in the middle of a budding residential community is a mistake of epic proportions. It's not that we are anti-development, rather we think it makes more sense to build residential/retail on this site instead of another glass office tower that does nothing to enhance the area. In the day time it adds to traffic congestion (as some of you have already noted) while at night the streets remain vacant as all the occupants head back to suburbia.

Given the state of financial markets there is no way this gets done in the next year. And that means that the pre-leased tenants will have to make other arrangements given their need to vacate existing premises. I know I will take a lot of grief on these thoughts but anyone that has even a smidgen of urban planning sense should know that this was a bad idea from the start.

^I just saw this. I am guessing I live closer to this development than you do, and that I have lived in the area longer than you have. Your comment does not reflect my feelings nor those of any of my many friends in the area.

[Taft]

Interesting. Since Wolf Point is virtually across the river from River Pointe does this mean that the proposed supertall, assumed to be a residential or multi-use development, is doomed by zoning irregardless of the state of the market?

I wouldn't make that assumption. The Central Area Plan is really more of a set of guidelines than a strict code or plan. It uses words like "emphasize" and "de-emphasize" to guide aldermen and planners to make good zoning decisions and influence development plans where possible. However exceptions to the "rules" laid out in the CAP are frequent. Though wolf point lays on the west-central side of the loop where development is supposed to be more commercial than residential, the CAP certainly doesn't preclude a residential building from being built. For instance, an apartment tower is currently going up on the corner of Wells and Lake and a building at Wacker and Jackson (or is it Van B?) is being repurposed for residential.

The CAP, I think, allows for and encourages some degree of variety (hence, it calls for "high-density mixed-use" development in the loop area). From an urban planning perspective, I think the CAP encourages the right things.

We should probably get back on topic before incurring Steely's wrath...

Taft

[the urban politician]

This was posted at SSC:

Hey guys. I just spoke to Case Foundation. They are going to be doing a few sections of the foundation here, and from what he told me is that they have a meeting with Amtrak, and that they are starting with a bunch of C Can casings in March, and that the actual cassion work will be done in May. Again, this is just what they are projecting. Will update if I hear anymore news.

[jcchii]

there was some kind of backhoe parked in the lot this morning when I went by on green line

[andydie]

cool news about this one as i liked the design. Hopefully he secured financess and it will move ahead as planned:)

[Tom In Chicago]

Lifted these images from the Website - http://www.chicagoriverpoint.com/

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/108797805.jpg
©Pickard Chilton Architects Inc.

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/108797816.jpg
©Pickard Chilton Architects Inc.

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/108797818.jpg
©Pickard Chilton Architects Inc.

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/108797793.jpg
©Pickard Chilton Architects Inc.

. . .

[jcchii]

that has the structure much farther from the river than the original render

[nomarandlee]

:previous: What I was thinking. If going by that render that seems to be the case.

[Tom In Chicago]

Yeah. . . also from the Canal Street side there's a mystery building which I suspect is part of the hotel component they're talking about. . . although I'm not clear on that part either since they have a second building just to the north of the site described in one of their elevation diagrams:

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/108798529.jpg
©Pickard Chilton Architects Inc.

. . .

[spyguy]

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8069/riverpoint1de9.jpg

[Chicago3rd]

that has the structure much farther from the river than the original render

I thought the plan has always been to build the building in the area west of the tracks and the park over the tracks? Looks like they placed it where it has been planned.

[AJphx]

http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/01/expert-panel-if-444-lake-fails-chicago-development-could-cease.html

Expert Panel: If 444 Lake Fails, Chicago Development Could Cease
By Tony Wilbert

CHICAGO (Jan. 27, 2009) - In normal times, a proposed 1.1 million-square-foot office tower that pre-leases about 60 percent of its space to two good-credit tenants is a sure thing to secure financing and get off the ground.

But in these far-from-normal times, it's uncertain whether Hines will be able to get construction financing for 444 Lake, a $330 million tower planned in Chicago’s West Loop submarket. It’s also known as River Point.

Hines has issued a financing package and now must brace itself for the response from lenders.

If Hines and its partners fail in their quest, speculative high-profile development in downtown Chicago could halt, according to a panel of commercial real estate experts. The panel was a highlight of the 7th Annual Commercial Real Estate Forecast Conference & Expo held Jan. 27 at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.

Tom Corfman, a veteran commercial real estate reporter now with Chicago Real Estate Daily.comand Crain’s Chicago Business, moderated the panel and kept it interesting with provocative questions and insight gained from covering the market for so long.

"It would probably kill most - if not all - development in the next couple of years," said Bill Rogers, managing director of Jones Lang LaSalle's tenant rep business in Chicago. Rogers and his team represented law firm Baker & McKenziein its 300,000-square-foot pre-lease at 444 Lake, designed by Pickard Chilton.

Steven Schnur, senior vice president of Duke Realty Corp., agreed. "It's probably going to put a cease to building in the near future."

Rogers said he's optimistic, in fact 90 percent certain, that Hines will secure financing for River Point but acknowledged that "it's a little bit of a guessing game." Arthur Nieman, principal-in-charge of product leasing at the John Buck Co., says its competitor Hines stands a "50-50" chance of getting financing. "It's really a tough market," Nieman said.

"It's a good time to be finishing a project," Nieman said. "What's happening with Hines will set a tone."

Bob Bach, chief economist at Grubb & Ellis said financing any project during these times will be tough. He kicked off the forecast event with an overview of the U.S. economy.

“It has been a difficult year for commercial real estate,” he said, though he needed not tell that to this crowd. They live it every day. “A good chunk of credit has been frozen.”

Time will tell whether a well pre-leased signature office tower can help thaw the credit markets.

[jcchii]

^interesting, and seems right.

if you can't get financing for that, what can you get it for

hopefully it will get going when it gets warm

[cbotnyse]

[url]
Hines has issued a financing package and now must brace itself for the response from lenders.how does this process work exactly? They put together a package and any lender out there who likes it, takes it?

The biggest thing that needs to return to the market is risk taking. The liquidity should be there, but lenders still need to take that leap and put the money to work.

This will be interesting to see, but the 2 failed projects right down the river cant be helping the cause.

:fingerscrossed:

[ardecila]

^^ Right. Hines needs to make the call on how much of their own equity to put into the project. Earlier, they were very hesitant to increase that percentage. Now it seems they have bitten the bullet.

With so many construction projects wrapping up and material prices falling every day, the construction cost of this tower should be dropping.

The "two failed projects down the river" are residential and reflect a very different set of risks, IMO.

[BorisMolotov]

The devaluation of the dollar and the decrease in materials and labor should help any project right now and any in the near future. If only banks were willing to lend, then we'd be out of this slump quickly.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ The dollar hasn't lost value. If anything its gained quite a bit. The only currency the dollar has dropped significantly against is the Yen which has been on an absolute tear. The Euro has crashed, the Pound has crashed, and inflation is nil, therefore the dollar has gained some value, which is actually good because it means that we can buy more Chinese steel and raw materials for less.

[BorisMolotov]

^ I'm sorry I meant deflation

[the urban politician]

Some new guy at SSC is reporting that financing is likely to fall through for this one. Not sure how reliable he is

[X-fib2]

Some new guy at SSC is reporting that financing is likely to fall through for this one. Not sure how reliable he is

As someone suggested, if financing falls through on this AAA project then no proposal will get funded. I sure hope this is not the case since this is one of three that I really would like to see happen in the near term.

[AJphx]

Some new guy at SSC is reporting that financing is likely to fall through for this one. Not sure how reliable he is
http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1436294,CST-FIN-roeder18.article

Well this article from the 18th is about William Blair being in a bind because their current building has refused a lease extension and River Point has not started construction yet. About financing it just says Hines is still confident they will get it soon... Nothing indicating that they are absolutely unable to obtain financing or anything...

[hxasmirl]

Wow :ahhh: :typing:

[woodrow]

Boy, talk about Exhibit A on how bad the credit freeze is. Hines, a proven developer, with commitments to the majority of the building space by reputable companies, is having trouble getting finance. This really shows how awful things are. F*ck!

[Thymant]

I really like this building and feel that it will fit in well with the skyline.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1459065,CST-FIN-roeder04.article

A new brush with history
REAL ESTATE |
Talk of Sears Tower makeover creates big buzz
Recommend Comments

March 4, 2009

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

.........SCRATCHING THE NICHE: Developer Steven Fifield's faith in the West Loop has paid off handsomely. Since 2000, he's put up four office buildings on Clinton or Jefferson streets. Despite the seized-up credit markets, Fifield said he's tantalizingly close to starting a fifth, 26 stories and 406,000 square feet at 601 W. Monroe, the southwest corner of Monroe and Jefferson. DeStefano & Partners designed the building.
Fifield said two insurance firms are willing to fund a $90 million construction loan if he can secure leases for at least 180,000 square feet. That means finding one or two anchor tenants looking for a new home around 2011 and Fifield can break ground this year.

Fifield said one possible signee is the law firm Baker & McKenzie, currently committed to a proposed 50-story tower at Lake and Canal that is stuck in credit limbo. If Fifield snatched Baker, it probably would kill the project pushed by Hines Interests LP. ..

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33191

Hines misses financing deadline for proposed tower
By Thomas A. Corfman, March 04, 2009

Hines Interests L.P. has missed a deadline imposed by William Blair & Co. LLC to get construction financing for a $536-million skyscraper to be anchored by the investment firm, intensifying doubts that the riverfront tower will be built.

A joint venture led by Houston-based Hines still has a 30-day grace period to arrange financing. But the firm now risks breaking the lease and being forced to pay Chicago-based Blair a hefty, multimillion-dollar penalty.

Meanwhile, the two sides are discussing Hines’ request for a 90-day extension of the financing deadline, according to sources familiar with the talks.

[the urban politician]

Not looking good here guys...

I can't remember a recent, major downtown project that has emerged successfully once it has gone to the brink like this one has..

[jcchii]

601 w monroe looks like the kind of building we'll see in a downturn like this. catching the overflow from glitzier projects that get killed off

[andydie]

this sucks when even a solid project with future tennants like this doesnt get a loan. I dont see any new larger towers coming to Chicago for a while now and no continuation for the Spire and Waterview. This Crisis is getting annoying:hell:

[Steely Dan]

* posts deleted *

i'd just like to remind everyone that this is not the proper thread to debate the merits of the economic stimuls bill.

[chicubs111]

man this sucks...We cant seem to win now!...tower is 60% occupied and these damn banks wont loan nothing...i mean it really is just impossible for any substantial project to do anything when the banks are not budging :hell: :hell:

[Steely Dan]

man this sucks...We cant seem to win now!...tower is 60% occupied and these damn banks wont loan nothing...i mean it really is just impossible for any substantial project to do anything when the banks are not budging :hell: :hell:

and hines is an established and proven developer; they aren't some fly-by-night operation whom no one will take a risk on, they're a known quantity to the finance world. the fact that they can't even get money for a 60% pre-leased tower really does spell some bad news for commerical office development in chicago. perhaps 20-story fifield crap-boxes are the wave of the future.

[observer]

I heard today from a realestate professional that this project is really close to dead...that the property may be on the market soon...unless a miracle happens and they pull financing very, very soon. I hope the guy is full of crap...it's a nice tower and would be great for that site.

[Jaroslaw]

I doubt that in this environment Hines actually wants to go on with this project, even if it could. So that pointing at unnamed recalcitrant banks is a rational strategy here.

[museumparktom]

(Crain's) — William Blair & Co. won’t be moving to a proposed riverfront office tower. Developer Hines Interests L.P. said Wednesday it worked out a “mutual termination” of Blair’s lease to anchor a skyscraper proposed for a site along the Chicago River.

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33366

[Steely Dan]

^ YAY! 20-story Fifield crap-boxes for everyone!

[trvlr70]

News lately just goes from worse to worst. I would have bet everything that this tower was a done deal. Never would I have thought that it would be cancelled. Things just suck around here lately.:hell:

[woodrow]

^^ REALLY suck! I know I've said it before and Steely has, and others, but when Hines can't get financing, then commercial real estate development with large scale interesting buildings is dead for the forseeable future.

[VivaLFuego]

^ YAY! 20-story Fifield crap-boxes for everyone!

I doubt Blair would move to a Fifield crapbox. They're looking to co-anchor a trophy tower - the antithesis of a Fifield west loop box, which serves a useful if unglamorous function as barebones leasable space. My hunch is that they are probably limited in their geographic search to something along Wacker, LaSalle, or the River.

[Steely Dan]

^ sorry, it was law firm Baker & McKenzie that Fifield was trying to lure from 444 w lake. i get law firms mixed up all the time.

with this project appearing to be dead i the water now, Baker & McKenzie may very well get their Fifield crap-box. wherever blair ends up, it isn't going to be glamorous new construction. as woodrow said, if hines can't get money for a marquee project on a prime piece of river front property with big name anchor tenants already signed on, then nobody can.

[WonderlandPark]

Are there examples or photos of said "Fifield Crap Boxes" somewhere?

[spyguy]

Are there examples or photos of said "Fifield Crap Boxes" somewhere?

Most, but not all, of these were developed by Fifield:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=169700
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100402
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116742
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101491
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=550westjackson-chicago-il-usa
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=uniontower-chicago-il-usa
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=congresscenter-chicago-il-usa

[Dr. Taco]

^ wow, thanks for the thorough answering of that question, spyguy. i can see why steely speaks of fifield with such disdain. how could someone be so boring? I guess "slow and steady finishes the race", but dammit, take some pride in your work!

[Hoodrat]

The second to last (Union Tower) is just horrible.

[Chicago Shawn]

The article mentioned that Hines is exploring "reducing the height of the tower, and pushing the deadline back to 2012."

The hell with that, this site is way too prime for a short crap box; granted it probably would still be better than anything Fifield would throw up a few blocks west, but still. I would rather have this extremely prominate site remain vacant for the next boom, than take it away for a VE'ed POS.

The only positive scenario I see here is, Chicago gets the 2016 nod in October, and by then perhaps the recession has bottomed out and stabalized. This tower then goes forward next year with the remaining prospective tennants stacked on top of a new hotel, which would lock in finnancing after the Olympics announcement. One can dream, right?

[the urban politician]

The article mentioned that Hines is exploring "reducing the height of the tower, and pushing the deadline back to 2012."

The hell with that, this site is way too prime for a short crap box; granted it probably would still be better than anything Fifield would throw up a few blocks west, but still. I would rather have this extremely prominate site remain vacant for the next boom, than take it away for a VE'ed POS.

The only positive scenario I see here is, Chicago gets the 2016 nod in October, and by then perhaps the recession has bottomed out and stabalized. This tower then goes forward next year with the remaining prospective tennants stacked on top of a new hotel, which would lock in finnancing after the Olympics announcement. One can dream, right?

^ Couldn't agree more. A stub on that site would be an architectural travesty. One would hope that it would be designed like BCBS, to have the potential for expansion

[Nowhereman1280]

^ wow, thanks for the thorough answering of that question, spyguy. i can see why steely speaks of fifield with such disdain. how could someone be so boring? I guess "slow and steady finishes the race", but dammit, take some pride in your work!

Frankly I don't see what is so bad about most of those buildings. Someone has to build medium-sized office blocks in order to keep a diversity of rents in the future so all the small firms don't get pushed out once all the old 15 - 20 story buildings are demolished or turned to lofts.

And you guys should leave 550 West Adams out of this, that is one phenomenally cool building. Its absolutely gorgeous how it uses glass mullions as a decorative element. No one ever plays with glass like that and I hope this building stays standing for a long time to come. I wish Chicago had more medium sized and very interesting buildings like 550...

550 West Jackson's not bad either, it may be a little busy for my taste, but its interesting none-the-less.

Also, these short little towers are good because they are taking up spaces that used to be parking lots faster than big buildings could since like 3 of these equal one 444 W. Lake... I don't know how you can call these relatively high quality buildings "crap boxes"...

[Jibba]

The article mentioned that Hines is exploring "reducing the height of the tower, and pushing the deadline back to 2012."

The hell with that, this site is way too prime for a short crap box; granted it probably would still be better than anything Fifield would throw up a few blocks west, but still. I would rather have this extremely prominate site remain vacant for the next boom, than take it away for a VE'ed POS.

The only positive scenario I see here is, Chicago gets the 2016 nod in October, and by then perhaps the recession has bottomed out and stabalized. This tower then goes forward next year with the remaining prospective tennants stacked on top of a new hotel, which would lock in finnancing after the Olympics announcement. One can dream, right?

Exactly. My main concern is that whatever tower ends up on that site is going to be a visual terminus to the Main Branch view corridor looking west. That fact alone warrants a tower at least as aesthetically valuable and ambitious as the current design of River Point (and I would argue that River Point doesn't make the cut, but I am willing to accept that Hines would produce a high-quality-enough inception of the design that would be passable). So any reduction is height/quality/visual caliber would be a no-go for me.

[denizen467]

I don't know how you can call these relatively high quality buildings "crap boxes"...
If they were in Naperville, they would not be crap-boxes.
If they were on LaSalle or Michigan Avenue, they would be crap-boxes.
Where do you put the West Loop, closer to LaSalle or closer to Naperville?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I don't care where it is, they are not "crap boxes" in my mind. I don't know why a building like 550 Adams is a crap box. That building is great. It is a simple and efficient box, yet its facade is absolutely great, the fins of glass create a phenomenal effect in the sun from up close refracting light everywhere while it has a unique shimmer effect from a distance which is a unique and refreshing texture. Also it fills out the lot right to the street which most office buildings built these days don't do. This gives it the same dense feel and quality that a lot of older buildings in the area have.

I don't see one reason that makes this building anything less than a "good" building. I personally think its one of the better buildings built recently in Chicago. Give me one reason to call it a "crap box" and no making some weird statement about whether its closer to naperville of LaSalle St. is not a legitimate reason.

How can you resist this:

http://static.flickr.com/65/168514124_fb2e745ff1_o.jpg
archidose.blogspot.com

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2742370919_871606c152.jpg?v=1218161513
flckr unknown

[Dr. Taco]

^ one or two of them are good, but gosh, nowhere, every building is practically the same height, same floorspace, but different colored sprinkles on top. i appreciate the buildings for what they are, but they are stubby and boring and NOT a good fit for the riverside.

[spyguy]

Someone has to build medium-sized office blocks in order to keep a diversity of rents in the future so all the small firms don't get pushed out once all the old 15 - 20 story buildings are demolished or turned to lofts.

These buildings aren't for small firms though. They're designed for one or two companies like USG or Quaker Oats. I'm not sure why smaller firms in the future would find it cheaper to operate in relatively new West Loop buildings as opposed to the older buildings in the East Loop.

And you guys should leave 550 West Adams out of this...550 West Jackson's not bad either, it may be a little busy for my taste, but its interesting none-the-less.

The 550's are alright, but still nothing special. I guess I don't like that they're all practically squat boxes lined up in a row. Plus you have to take into consideration that Fifield has built a lot of crappy apartment buildings nearby. I don't think anybody wants to see something like the CTA Center right next to the river.


http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2845.jpg


Also, these short little towers are good because they are taking up spaces that used to be parking lots faster than big buildings could since like 3 of these equal one 444 W. Lake

I think that's my biggest problem with them. Except for maybe the north side of the main branch, the CBD is only growing West. It seems like we're being shortsighted and underutilizing these prime locations by building 20 story glass boxes. And it'd be great if these buildings and River Point added hotel/residential components so this area wouldn't feel so dead at night.

[Nowhereman1280]

^ one or two of them are good, but gosh, nowhere, every building is practically the same height, same floorspace, but different colored sprinkles on top. i appreciate the buildings for what they are, but they are stubby and boring and NOT a good fit for the riverside.

Well since when was I saying we should build one next to the river? I was just arguing that you can hardly call Fifield's office blocks "crap boxes", especially not 550 adams, which, unsurprisingly is a Destephano design.

These buildings aren't for small firms though. They're designed for one or two companies like USG or Quaker Oats. I'm not sure why smaller firms in the future would find it cheaper to operate in relatively new West Loop buildings as opposed to the older buildings in the East Loop.


I'm not talking about the present, obviously old space is cheaper than new space. My point is that, as the old buildings all get destroyed, renovated, or facadectomized, we will have a smaller amount of cheap office space in smaller buildings for small firms. You can already see the problem in the Central loop and along Wacker where small firms used to be able to subsist but were driven out as rows of 444 lake sized office towers were built.

This is all part of the urban cycle, the West loop was like 40% parking lots 10 years ago, you can't just go straight from that to 50 story buildings if you want a healthy neighborhood. I'm saying that, in 30 years, when these buildings are more run down, they will be havens for smaller businesses until someone comes along, just like with that small building by Sears, and renovates them again. Like it or not, a healthy city requires a new supply of buildings of all sizes and types, including 20 story glass boxes downtown.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33950

Jones Lang files lien over commission
By Thomas A. Corfman, May 06, 2009

A dispute over a $2.8-million commission payment between Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. and a venture led by developer Hines Interests L.P. is casting more doubt about a proposed riverfront skyscraper that has already lost one anchor tenant.

Jones Lang says it hasn’t been paid for brokering a deal that made law firm Baker & McKenzie a co-anchor tenant of a building Hines proposed for a site along the west bank of the Chicago River at Lake Street, according to a lien the Chicago-based real estate firm filed against the property.

“The lien is a sign that they (Jones Lang) have given up hope,” said David Montross, CEO of Chicago-based tenant representation firm UGL Equis, which isn’t involved in the project, called River Point. “And I think it’s clear that it can’t happen in this environment. You can’t get it financed.”

...Now, the lien raises new questions about whether even a smaller project of 750,000 to 800,000 square feet could be financed.

[VivaLFuego]

I think that's my biggest problem with them. Except for maybe the north side of the main branch, the CBD is only growing West. It seems like we're being shortsighted and underutilizing these prime locations by building 20 story glass boxes. And it'd be great if these buildings and River Point added hotel/residential components so this area wouldn't feel so dead at night.

They all look the same because they are all basically built to the maximum allowable dimensions as-of-right under the zoning classification. Incidentally, one of the major goals and "achievements" of the Central Area Plan was upzoning this area of the West Loop precisely to encourage this level of office density with the idea that this would be the expansion of the office core, albeit at somewhat lower built density and with somewhat more mixed uses. Until recently, most of the land west of about Clinton (I think... going from memory) was zoned for FAR 5.0, whereas now it's mostly for 10.0 and 7.0 all the way to the expressway. I suppose the area could be upzoned yet again to the full FAR 16.0 allowed in the loop proper, but it's important to realize that the existing conditions today already represent a 'victory' from the perspective of Chicago land use planners, to the extent they have any power/influence.

[BVictor1]

^^^ I don't care where it is, they are not "crap boxes" in my mind. I don't know why a building like 550 Adams is a crap box. That building is great. It is a simple and efficient box, yet its facade is absolutely great, the fins of glass create a phenomenal effect in the sun from up close refracting light everywhere while it has a unique shimmer effect from a distance which is a unique and refreshing texture. Also it fills out the lot right to the street which most office buildings built these days don't do. This gives it the same dense feel and quality that a lot of older buildings in the area have.

I don't see one reason that makes this building anything less than a "good" building. I personally think its one of the better buildings built recently in Chicago. Give me one reason to call it a "crap box" and no making some weird statement about whether its closer to naperville of LaSalle St. is not a legitimate reason.

How can you resist this:

http://static.flickr.com/65/168514124_fb2e745ff1_o.jpg
archidose.blogspot.com

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2742370919_871606c152.jpg?v=1218161513
flckr unknown

In terms of height, they certainly are crap boxes. There's only a certain amount of space left for development.

YOu can't keep building these little shoe box buildings in the West Loop, take it out to Rosemont.

No, it really doesn't give the same dense feeling. It feels dense walking down LaSalle, not DesPlaines.

I can resist this because it absolutely does nothing for me. No boner, no happiness, nothing...

[ardecila]

In terms of height, they certainly are crap boxes. There's only a certain amount of space left for development.

YOu can't keep building these little shoe box buildings in the West Loop, take it out to Rosemont.

You talk as if, somehow, the CBD will eventually "fill up" and hit a wall, causing some kind of development crisis.

Chicago is a HUGE, HUGE city. If West Loop Gate fills up with shorter buildings, then office development will spread south of the Eisenhower, or to one of many remaining vacant lots west of the Kennedy, or to Wicker Park, or along the west bank of the North Branch (in the area around the Tribune plant).

I've always entertained the idea of developing a second office district around the United Center. This would create a unique neighborhood within Chicago - sort of Buckhead-ish - and add ridership to the underused Pink Line as commuters transfer from Metra or the Red/Blue/Brown lines.

The fact is, I honestly don't care what the height of these buildings are, because Chicago can accommodate office growth in many places, and this single-minded obsession on downtown actually is holding the office sector back from improving other areas of the city. Smaller cities need to focus on downtown because they struggle to maintain the critical mass downtown for lively streets and a pleasant, safe perception of their CBD. Chicago, on the other hand, has the ability to direct office development anywhere within a "greater downtown area" that stretches up to North Avenue, down to Cermak, and west to Western.

Now, for the 444 West Lake site - I believe it deserves a tall building because of its prominent location along the river. But don't try to apple the same rules to random sites along Desplaines and Jefferson.

[trvlr70]

You
I've always entertained the idea of developing a second office district around the United Center. This would create a unique neighborhood within Chicago - sort of Buckhead-ish - and add ridership to the underused Pink Line as commuters transfer from Metra or the Red/Blue/Brown lines.



OMG...I hate this idea. The fact that Chicago is so centralized is what makes it unique and prosperous. I don't want a downtown St. Louis/Clayton, Dallas/Galleria, Houston/Post Oak, Atlanta/Buckhead, general LA feel here.

[the urban politician]

^ Or a midtown/downtown (NYC) feel neither, right? :rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with 2 office districts, IMO, as long as they are both in the city and both served by mass transit.

[nomarandlee]

I don't think downtown Brooklyn or Canary Wharf have substantially lessened NYC and London. It is OK to have an alternative business district as long as it is built around a viable transit hub. I don't think the Pink Line and UC would provide a good enough transit option but Jefferson Park could potentially.

[ardecila]

I don't know, I think United Center works pretty well. It's a short ride from downtown on either the Blue Line for LaSalle Street/Union Station folks or the Pink Line for Ogilvie folks, making it have (almost) the same regional connectivity as downtown itself.

Jefferson Park only connects the Blue Line to the Metra UP-NW Line, and it's a long way from downtown. By locating there, you're essentially shutting out people from the western, southwest, and south suburbs. By all means, it should be a dense node with tall residential, but I don't know about an office center - Veterans Center, which is already there, is having trouble filling up with tenants, and it's small potatoes even compared to the so-called "West Loop crap boxes".

As far as New York goes, the better comparison would be Long Island City (or Jersey City) where new office districts have sprouted up in neighborhoods with cheap land. These are mostly back-office functions which need to be close to Manhattan but don't justify Manhattan real estate prices - just like the "crap boxes" in the West Loop.

[BVictor1]

You talk as if, somehow, the CBD will eventually "fill up" and hit a wall, causing some kind of development crisis.

Chicago is a HUGE, HUGE city. If West Loop Gate fills up with shorter buildings, then office development will spread south of the Eisenhower, or to one of many remaining vacant lots west of the Kennedy, or to Wicker Park, or along the west bank of the North Branch (in the area around the Tribune plant).

I've always entertained the idea of developing a second office district around the United Center. This would create a unique neighborhood within Chicago - sort of Buckhead-ish - and add ridership to the underused Pink Line as commuters transfer from Metra or the Red/Blue/Brown lines.

The fact is, I honestly don't care what the height of these buildings are, because Chicago can accommodate office growth in many places, and this single-minded obsession on downtown actually is holding the office sector back from improving other areas of the city. Smaller cities need to focus on downtown because they struggle to maintain the critical mass downtown for lively streets and a pleasant, safe perception of their CBD. Chicago, on the other hand, has the ability to direct office development anywhere within a "greater downtown area" that stretches up to North Avenue, down to Cermak, and west to Western.

Now, for the 444 West Lake site - I believe it deserves a tall building because of its prominent location along the river. But don't try to apple the same rules to random sites along Desplaines and Jefferson.

Uh, yeah, the CBD will "eventually" fill up. It's not an infinate amount of space. And I said nothing about a development crisis.

Yes, Chicago is a huge city, 227.2 sq mi to be precise, but only a fraction of that accounts for the central area and has high density zoning. THere's a chance that there will be expansion of office space south of the Ike, but on the east side of the river, the majority of development will be residential and west of the river, transportation kind of sucks.

Wicker Park, you must be delusional. There won't be any office development there. It's hard enough getting new residential density in that area. The west bank of the north branch also doesn't seem likely unless Goose Island is ever rezoned from a PMD and the redl line stub subway is ever actually built.

For all the sites you mention, public transportation would need to be vastly improved and whole areas would need to be rezoned, which isn't a small task. I don't see this happening around the UC because of all the low density residential. It's possible, but not probable.

If you have these views about development, maybe you should be so inclined to attend some of the meetings on development and city issues that tend to occur. There are so many people on here who are all talk and full of ideas, but lack action. I don't have a wife/kids/significant other but I work all day and I've managed to make it to 4 or 5 of the central area meetings.

Yeah, I will apply the same ideas and concepts to random sites along Desplaines and Jefferson. It's 4 blocks from the Sears Tower. Cracker box buildings in that area defeats the purpose of it being a part of the central area, especially after the city has stated that they want downtown to expand in that region. Would you put a trailer park in Kenilworth? I don't think so...

[BVictor1]

I don't think downtown Brooklyn or Canary Wharf have substantially lessened NYC and London. It is OK to have an alternative business district as long as it is built around a viable transit hub. I don't think the Pink Line and UC would provide a good enough transit option but Jefferson Park could potentially.

Don't ever expect anything in Jeff Park. Too many goddamn nimbys and Levar is a prick who has fought 3-story apartment buildings.

[the urban politician]

Edit:

I moved my post to General Developments

[Abner]

What about south of Congress, from the river to Clark? There's a ton of space there. The section south of Polk wouldn't connect to the east without destroying at least part of Dearborn Park, but then most of the people around here would like to do that anyway. It could use better transit connections, but between the LaSalle Metra station, the LaSalle Blue Line, the LaSalle/Van Buren Loop station, and the Harrison Red Line, existing access is not too bad (and comes from a lot of different directions that don't require a transfer, which hardly any other locations have going for them).

[BVictor1]

What about south of Congress, from the river to Clark? There's a ton of space there. The section south of Polk wouldn't connect to the east without destroying at least part of Dearborn Park, but then most of the people around here would like to do that anyway. It could use better transit connections, but between the LaSalle Metra station, the LaSalle Blue Line, the LaSalle/Van Buren Loop station, and the Harrison Red Line, existing access is not too bad (and comes from a lot of different directions that don't require a transfer, which hardly any other locations have going for them).

That area is planned to be residential, but office space would be good to. It's within walking distance of LaSalle Street Station and the blue line.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34513

Jones Lang releases $2.8 million lien for commission on riverfront deal
By Thomas A. Corfman, June 23, 2009

Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. and developer Hines Interests L.P. have apparently settled a dispute over a $2.8-million commission payment for brokering a deal to have law firm Baker & McKenzie co-anchor a riverfront skyscraper proposed by a Hines-led venture.

Chicago-based Jones Lang filed a lien earlier this year against the site at 444 W. Lake St., where Baker and William Blair & Co. were to co-anchor a 1.1-million-square-foot tower. But Hines has missed deadlines to obtain financing for the project, leading to the termination of Blair’s deal, and the lien cast even more doubt on whether the structure will ever be built.

[lawfin]

Not sure if this was reported about the decrease in space from 1,2 mil to 800K

New financing parameters have led to the uncertainty of an
announced office development. 444 Lake Street went back to the
design table when financing could not be secured for a 1.2M sf
building anchored by William Blair and Baker McKenzie. Blair has
since walked from the deal and the building size has been reduced to
800,000 sf while financing for the project remains problematic.

http://www.cresapartners.com/tenantsguides/Chicago.pdf

[djvandrake]

Ah!!! Bad news. Very bad news. I'd rather they wait until the market improves and build the original design than have them shorten the tower and build now.

[VivaLFuego]

If the floorplates stay of a similar size, that will bring this guy under 500 feet, probably to a comparable height of its neighbor Riverbend.

[brian_b]

There are two concrete trucks and what looks like a soil boring rig on the site this morning. I'm guessing it is unrelated to the development as they are on the portion that would become parkland and very near the Lake St bridge.

[uaarkson]

This building is absolutely gorgeous. Get built!

[spyguy]

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5076/rp10.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2622/rp12.jpg
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5195/rp11z.jpg

[Dr. Taco]

:(

[Ordo_]

I actually wish the building wasn't so set back and more closely followed the river.

[ardecila]

It's done for practical reasons. The rail tracks underneath will be close to the river, so if Hines wants to build a building over them, the tracks must be relocated and shifted around the columns. A plaza space can simply be supported on long beams over the tracks.

I think it's funny how none of the new renders show the building in full-height. It's as if they're saying - everything cool about this building is still in the plans! (Just ignore how tiny it has become...)

[brian_b]

The other advantage is that the building will be close to the street!

[scalziand]

It looks like the plaza could use more than one set of steps down to the riverwalk.

[BVictor1]

It looks like the plaza could use more than one set of steps down to the riverwalk.

i agree.

there also seems to be elevator access at Lake Street.

The more detailed renderings make me like this tower even more, but I still hope that they don't reduce the height.

Also, the lobby decor looks too much like 300 North LaSalle. Yes, I know it's the same architect, but there needs to be some variation.

[ardecila]

Also, the lobby decor looks too much like 300 North LaSalle. Yes, I know it's the same architect, but there needs to be some variation.

It's also the same developer. Perhaps they want to have a signature lobby design?

[the urban politician]

Yeah, looks good. I hope the height isn't too affected.

[jcchii]

I thought this was on the ash heap of history

[ardecila]

Nope, it still has a heartbeat. Hines is a huge company with lots of assets, and apparently they see a really good opportunity here, since they are spending their own time and money resolving the lien disputes.

It really is a signature site... Despite the technical challenges, I'm surprised it isn't developed already. It fronts directly onto the turning basin, at the visual terminus of Wacker Drive and the Main Branch. If Wolf Point is ever developed, it will block out Riverbend from that vista, but River Point here will still be visible.