CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Busy Bee]

Wasn't aware the vertical marquee wan't to the original scale. Thanks for the info.

[Busy Bee]

**

After looking at this old photo though, are we sure the marquee isn't more or less the same size but just mounted higher on the facade?

[TR Devlin]

Another old theater I'd love to see restored is the Medinah Temple at Wabash and Ohio. My grandfather was a Shriner and I remember him taking the family to the circus there.

Bloomingdale's Home Store is in the building now but Macy's (Bloomingdale's parent) is looking to sell the building.

Here's what the theater used to look like:


Here's what it looks like today:


And here's a link to more

[Via Chicago]

restoration of the temple beyond its current state seems impossible. they straight up gutted it (which is a complete shame. it was considered one of the most acoustically perfect venues in the city)

[Busy Bee]

$$$

If somebody has enough $$$ and thinks they can make enough $$$ anything can happen.

[TR Devlin]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

$$$

If somebody has enough $$$ and thinks they can make enough $$$ anything can happen.

Yes. It’s largely about $$$. And it seems to me the relevant questions are:

1. What would it cost to rip out most or all of the interior and build a new theater?
2. Would the cost be justified, considering that you would save the exterior ornamentation (including the roof), plus the ceiling dome over the stage area?
3. What are the chances the building is sold, torn down and replaced with a highrise glass box?
4. Is there a demand for another large downtown theater? (Another theater would both support and be supported by increased tourism.)
5. Should/could the City pay for some of this? Could some of the McPier tax $$ be used? (IMO, this would be at least as worthwhile as the money being spent on Navy Pier.)

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by TR Devlin

3. What are the chances the building is sold, torn down and replaced with a highrise glass box?

Zero. It's a Chicago landmark.

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

**

After looking at this old photo though, are we sure the marquee isn't more or less the same size but just mounted higher on the facade?

A few stories shorter, on the bottom and top.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sminor...7625908772271/
https://imgur.com/a/HZx61Ci

[ChiRaz]

I originally wanted to post this on the Salesforce Tower thread when folks were complaining about the height reduction (but it got locked!), but the above posts reminded me of it, especially the post mentioning that the current Chicago boom is not producing many buildings in the current world's 300 tallest. China, Dubai, NYC, etc. - those are simply in a different class, as mentioned and discussed thoroughly on this forum. Let's just look at the US for a little perspective. I took a spin through the Emporis database and looked at “existing" and "under construction" buildings in 13 other US cities (other than NY of course - that’s in a league of its own and would be too depressing to list(!)). Take the proposed Salesforce Tower coming in at 844’. If built, it would currently be tied for 14th highest in Chicago and only the 6th building of 844” or higher built in the city in the last 28 years since 1990. The below height rankings do not take into account for planned projects or projects that have not started construction (and, aside from the many here in Chicago, as you will see, there really aren’t that many planned buildings in all of these other cities below that are >844’ - listed as “planned” on Emporis). If we use the OCS height, this list would be even more illustrative (to lazy to update!). Bottom line, this current cycle in Chicago is pretty darn sweet!

An 844’ high building would rank the as the following tallest building in the following cities (in the parentheticals, I list the # of >844" buildings built in that city since 1990 and, if applicable the # planned per Emporis):

Chicago: Tie 14th highest (with Park Tower) (# of >844ft since 1990: 6; planned >844ft: 5)

L.A.: 4th highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 1; planned >844ft: 2)

Houston: 4th highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 0)

Philadelphia: 5th highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 3) - note, 4th highest=848 ft

Dallas: 3rd highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 0)

San Fran: 4th highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 2)

Charlotte: 2nd highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 1)

Seattle: 3rd highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 1; planned >844ft: 1) - note, 2nd highest=849 ft

Atlanta: 3rd highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 2)

Denver: tallest

Boston: tallest

Detroit: tallest; planned >844ft: 1

Indianapolis: tallest

Cleveland: 2nd highest (# of >844ft since 1990: 1)

[AMWChicago]

^^^

No doubt. I love breaking things down the way you just did.

While it hurts to see Chicago struggle to produce supertalls at the same rate as New York, we must remember how crazy it is that a city like Chicago is even in the conversation with global cities like New York, Dubai, and Shanghai. Those cities have it easy. They basically print real estate demand. Chicago has to work for it. And we do a pretty damn good job. We use our architectural legacy to promote high rises in a region of the US where skyscrapers simply aren't demanded. Other global cities are incredibly dense and land value is incredibly high, thus the sky is the limit. In Chicago, while we are dense and land value isn't necessarily cheap, it's impressive how many skyscrapers tower over Lake Michigan. We are at a disadvantage on a lot of levels, yet we prove time and time again that we can play with the big boys. And I believe the next cycle will produce towers that will begin to rival Billionaire's Row in Manhattan. New York definitely capitalized on this cycle, and we did too. But, yes. New York won this one lol. But we'll get 'em back. That's how rivalries work!

And please don't lock this thread, I don't want to start a rant lol just wanted to back up this guys post. OCS is dynamite, no matter the height!

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by AMWChicago

In Chicago, while we are dense and land value isn't necessarily cheap, it's impressive how many skyscrapers tower over Lake Michigan. !

I don’t to be dismissive of the fact that there does seem to be something in Chicago’s culture where we really love and admire skyscrapers in a way that other cities’ residents don’t. But how much of that is cause and effect is hard to say—Chicagoans like tall buildings because it’s already part of our identity and people who like them naturally sort into the city.

What is undeniable, however, is that the central business district of Chicago has very, very high land values. The developers who build these towers aren’t swayed by emotion—it’s cold, hard cash that’s motivating our skyline. And Chicago has the second-highest central land values in the United States.

What’s fascinating is that Chicago’s *average* land values over the metro are so low, and how quickly land values attenuate with distance to the Loop.

Source: “Land values are highest by far in the central areas of superstar cities. In New York, the value of an acre of urban land in and around the city center is $123 million. Chicago ranks second, with central urban land valued at roughly $37 million an acre, followed closely by Washington, D.C. ($36 million), and then San Francisco ($25 million), Los Angeles and Honolulu (roughly $16 million), Philadelphia ($13 million), and San Diego ($10 million). ”

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...n-land/544706/

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ChiRaz

I originally wanted to post this on the Salesforce Tower thread when folks were complaining about the height reduction (but it got locked!), but the above posts reminded me of it, especially the post mentioning that the current Chicago boom is not producing many buildings in the current world's 300 tallest. China, Dubai, NYC, etc. - those are simply in a different class, as mentioned and discussed thoroughly on this forum.

Yea this is exaggerated to an annoyingly negative extent. Vista will be in the top 50-75 upon completion and OCS may still make top 200.

But I have to agree with the last few posts. Chicago has always impressed me, it has a mind-blowing skyline and has always been home to some of the world's tallest buildings, so I don't appreciate the self deprecating attitudes of some people.

In Chicago, while we are dense and land value isn't necessarily cheap, it's impressive how many skyscrapers tower over Lake Michigan. We are at a disadvantage on a lot of levels, yet we prove time and time again that we can play with the big boys. And I believe the next cycle will produce towers that will begin to rival Billionaire's Row in Manhattan. New York definitely capitalized on this cycle, and we did too. But, yes. New York won this one lol. But we'll get 'em back. That's how rivalries work!

True, according to the CTBUH Chicago is in the top 5 or 10 for most skyscraper categories. That's nothing to complain about. I really hope next cycle brings some supertalls, but at the end of the day NY and Chi-town are both on team North America.

[AMWChicago]

So I wanted to break down a timeline for everyone to understand if Chicago has actually "lost ground" in the American Skyscraper race. While this only includes top ten data (trust me I know New York is churning out supertalls and this doesn't convey the totals as a city), it gives you an idea at how the general public would of understood where the tallest buildings in the country were located. And honestly, as for the top ten, Chicago is in a very similar situation that it has been in recent decades. But as we've said in this thread, Chicago blows other American cities away. And the past 50 years we've seen a two dog race. I Know this may not be the best thread to post this on, but since we're talking about this kinda stuff right now I'd figure I'd drop it here.

Moreover, like what Zapatan said, we represent the American Skyscraper. While I wish Chicago was neck and neck with New York, we both represent an American Icon and where it began. And like I said before, I think Chicago will grab a couple more of these seats back by 2030. But a 7:3 Ratio is probably expected. And honestly generous to Chicago considering New York has roughly 5 times the high rise count.


Also, the recurring buildings from decade to decade can give us insight to how the standings shook up. In 2020, only 4 buildings from 2010 are in the top ten. That's the lowest amount since 1930. America's top ten have been relatively constant, or took at least 20+ years to have shift around. This may explain why we feel shook up over how New York's skyline has rapidly changed. It's the roaring twenties all over again. But instead of art deco, it's skinny supertalls.

Also, ESB is a stud. He's like Babe Ruth and the Home Run Record. So far ahead of his time. It's amazing how ESB is still in the top ten, truly amazing.

For Comparison:

ESB is on 9 decades up until 2020
Chrysler was on 9 up until 2010
40 Wall St was on 6 up until 1980
Sears is on 5 up until 2020
Hancock is on 5 up until 2010
70 Pine St was on 5 up until 1980
Woolworth was on 5 up until 1960



The American Skyscraper
—————————————


1920

New York-6
Boston-1
Cincinnati-1
Hartford-1
Seattle-1
1920 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

1930

New York-8
Cleveland-1
Detroit-1

Recurring-2
1930 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1940

New York-9
Cleveland-1

Recurring-5
1940 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1950

New York-9
Cleveland-1

Recurring-10
1950 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1960

New York-9
Cleveland-1

Recurring-9
1960 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1970

New York-7
Chicago-2
Pittsburgh-1

Recurring-5
1970 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1980

New York-7
Chicago-3

Recurring-5
1980 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

1990

Chicago-4
New York-4
Houston-1
Los Angeles-1

Recurring-7
1990 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

2000

Chicago-4
New York-4
Atlanta-1
Los Angeles-1

Recurring-9
2000 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


2010

Chicago-4
New York-4
Atlanta-1
Los Angeles-1

Recurring- 7
2010 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

2020

New York-7
Chicago-3

Recurring-4
2020 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

[AlpacaObsessor]

Sorry for derailing the discussion away from OCS, but since we're on the topic. What's crazy is that I did a similar analysis about a year ago, but moreso focusing on the change between 2017 and 2022 among the tallest buildings located in NYC+CHI vs other cities. I think part of the motivation behind why I spent like half an hour looking into this shit was just to see how buildings further down the list would be affected in terms of height rank by all the construction going on in NYC and CHI. I remember the high school I used to go to was right next to downtown Dallas and sometimes I'd look out of the window and think to myself how cool it was that the tallest building held the rank of 32nd tallest in the entire United States . . . though looks like by 2022 its gonna get knocked down about 10 or 12 spots.

Disclaimer: There's probably a few misplaced buildings since I believe I pulled the height info off of wikipedia or some other website.

Updated Version as of 2018

Tallest 20 buildings as of 2017:

1: 1WTC (NYC)
2: Sears (CHI)
3: 432 Park Ave (NYC)
4: Trump (CHI)
5: ESB (NYC)
6: BofA (NYC)
7: Aon (CHI)
8: JHC (CHI)
9: Comcast Tower (PHI)
10: Wilshire (LA)
11: 3WTC (NYC)
12: Salesforce (SF)
13: Chrysler (NYC)
14: NYT (NYC)
15: BofA (ATL)
16: US Bank (LA)
17: Franklin Center (CHI)
18: One 57 (NYC)
19: 600 Travis (HOU)
20: 2Prud (CHI)

Tallest 32 buildings in 2022:
(* = new)

1: 1WTC (NYC)
2: *Central Park Tower* (NYC)
3: Sears (CHI)
4: *111 W 57th* (NYC)
5: *1 Vanderbilt* (NYC)
6: 432 Park Ave (NYC)
7: Trump (CHI)
8: *30 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
9: ESB (NYC)
10: BofA (NYC)
11: *Vista* (CHI)
12: Aon (CHI)
13: JHC (CHI)
14: Comcast (PHI)
15: 45 Broad St (NYC)
16: Wilshire (LA)
17: 3WTC (NYC)
18: Salesforce (SF)
19: *9 Dekalb* (NYC)
20: *53W53* (NYC)
21: Chrysler (NYC)
22: NYT (NYC)
23: BofA (ATL)
24: US Bank (LA)
25: *35 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
26: Franklin Center (CHI)
27: One 57 (NYC)
28: 600 Travis (HOU)
29: *1 Manhattan West* (NYC)
30: 2Prud (CHI)
31: Wells Fargo (HOU)
32: *50 Hudson Yards* (NYC)

So between 2018 and 2022, NYC will go from having 4/10 and 8/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 8/10 and 12/20.
And between 2018 and 2022, NYC+CHI will go from having 8/10 and 14/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 10/10 and 17/20.

[the urban politician]

^ Thats assuming OCS and a few others (Tribune, etc ) on the boards are never built.

You are the Marothisu of skyscraper data

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by AlpacaObsessor

Tallest 32 buildings in 2022:
(* = new)

1: 1WTC (NYC)
2: *Central Park Tower* (NYC)
3: Sears (CHI)
4: *111 W 57th* (NYC)
5: *1 Vanderbilt* (NYC)
6: 432 Park Ave (NYC)
7: Trump (CHI)
8: *30 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
9: ESB (NYC)
10: BofA (NYC)
11: *Vista* (CHI)
12: Aon (CHI)
13: JHC (CHI)
14: Comcast (PHI)
15: 45 Broad St (NYC)
16: Wilshire (LA)
17: 3WTC (NYC)
18: Salesforce (SF)
19: *9 Dekalb* (NYC)
20: *53W53* (NYC)
21: Chrysler (NYC)
22: NYT (NYC)
23: BofA (ATL)
24: US Bank (LA)
25: *35 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
26: Franklin Center (CHI)
27: One 57 (NYC)
28: 600 Travis (HOU)
29: *1 Manhattan West* (NYC)
30: 2Prud (CHI)
31: Wells Fargo (HOU)
32: *50 Hudson Yards* (NYC)

So between 2018 and 2022, NYC will go from having 4/10 and 8/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 8/10 and 12/20.
And between 2018 and 2022, NYC+CHI will go from having 8/10 and 14/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 10/10 and 17/20.

These posts are way off topic, but just a few corrections - both 50 Hudson and the Spiral are taller than 1 Manhattan West, both under construction. 262 Fifth Avenue will also be taller than 1MW. 45 Broad Street will be around 1,200 ft, putting it in the top ten. All of that will change when you get towers like 270 Park, 2 WTC, all completed after 2022.

So, pushing it a little further to 2025, it would look something like this, all subject to change as various proposals are still in planning stages...


1: Freedom Tower (NY)
2. Central Park Tower (NY)
3. Sears Tower (CHI)
4. 111 W. 57 (NY)
5. Tribune Tower (CHI)
6. Chase Tower (likely higher) (NY)
7. One Vanderbilt (NY)
8. 30 Hudson (NY)
9. 2 WTC (NY)
10. Empire State (NY)


At that point, being nearly 100 years old, the ESB would still be in the top 10 in the country. That's why it's the king. Of that list, only two were standing as recent as 10 years ago.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by NYguy

These posts are way off topic, but just a few corrections - both 50 Hudson and the Spiral are taller than 1 Manhattan West, both under construction. 262 Fifth Avenue will also be taller than 1MW. 45 Broad Street will be around 1,200 ft, putting it in the top ten. All of that will change when you get towers like 270 Park, 2 WTC, all completed after 2022.

So, pushing it a little further to 2025, it would look something like this, all subject to change as various proposals are still in planning stages...


1: Freedom Tower (NY)
2. Central Park Tower (NY)
3. Sears Tower (CHI)
4. 111 W. 57 (NY)
5. Tribune Tower (CHI)
6. Chase Tower (likely higher) (NY)
7. One Vanderbilt (NY)
8. 30 Hudson (NY)
9. 2 WTC (NY)
10. Empire State (NY)


At that point, being nearly 100 years old, the ESB would still be in the top 10 in the country. That's why it's the king. Of that list, only two were standing as recent as 10 years ago.

Incorrect... Trump is taller than ESB

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

I don’t to be dismissive of the fact that there does seem to be something in Chicago’s culture where we really love and admire skyscrapers in a way that other cities’ residents don’t. But how much of that is cause and effect is hard to say—Chicagoans like tall buildings because it’s already part of our identity and people who like them naturally sort into the city.

What is undeniable, however, is that the central business district of Chicago has very, very high land values. The developers who build these towers aren’t swayed by emotion—it’s cold, hard cash that’s motivating our skyline. And Chicago has the second-highest central land values in the United States.

What’s fascinating is that Chicago’s *average* land values over the metro are so low, and how quickly land values attenuate with distance to the Loop.

Source: “Land values are highest by far in the central areas of superstar cities. In New York, the value of an acre of urban land in and around the city center is $123 million. Chicago ranks second, with central urban land valued at roughly $37 million an acre, followed closely by Washington, D.C. ($36 million), and then San Francisco ($25 million), Los Angeles and Honolulu (roughly $16 million), Philadelphia ($13 million), and San Diego ($10 million). ”

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...n-land/544706/

but what's odd about all of that is "why are downtown chicago's land values so high in the first place?"

we're not an island, or a peninsula, or ringed by mountains. our city exists on one of the flattest and most unceasing plains on the planet.

and we are a stagnant region, at best. there is no high population growth here. economic growth is falling relative to our peers.

and yet we build towers unlike any other US city not name new york.




in 1993:

chicago had 9 towers over 800' tall

the entire south had 9 towers over 800' tall

the entire west had 4 towers over 800' tall




since 1993 (including U/C):

chicago has built 8 towers over 800' tall (9 once OCS pops), for a total of 17 (18)

the entire south has built 3 towers over 800' tall, for a total of 12

the entire west has built 5 towers over 800' tall, for a total of 9



and i'm not comparing chicago to other cities here, but to entire US macro-regions with many large skyscraper-building cities each, cities that have seen orders of magnitude more population and economic growth than chicago has over the past 25 years.

chicago just seems to love building tall towers, and it's a phenomenon that seems completely divorced from overall population and economic growth (or lack thereof) in the region.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm not seeing anything surprising here, even without much regional growth.

1. We have a ton of wealth here, and for the better part of the last 60 years, it has remained locked up in the suburbs.

2. With city living now becoming popular everywhere, Chicago is opening up tons of untapped potential, and already has the infrastructure in place to have a downtown nearly filled to the brim with skyscrapers.

Most of the boom has been residential, as evidence of this.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but what's odd about all of that is "why are downtown chicago's land values so high in the first place?"

we're not an island, or a peninsula, or ringed by mountains. our city exists on one of the flattest and most unceasing plains on the planet.

and we are a stagnant region, at best. there is no high population growth here. economic growth is falling relative to our peers.

and yet we build towers unlike any other US city not name new york.




in 1993:

chicago had 9 towers over 800' tall

the entire south had 9 towers over 800' tall

the entire west had 4 towers over 800' tall




since 1993 (including U/C):

chicago has built 8 towers over 800' tall (9 once OCS pops), for a total of 17 (18)

the entire south has built 3 towers over 800' tall, for a total of 12

the entire west has built 5 towers over 800' tall, for a total of 9



and i'm not comparing chicago to other cities here, but to entire US macro-regions with many large skyscraper-building cities each, cities that have seen orders of magnitude more population and economic growth than chicago has over the past 25 years.

chicago just seems to love building tall towers, and it's a phenomenon that seems completely divorced from overall population and economic growth (or lack thereof) in the region.

I think a large part of it is it's a cultural stereotype that defies the reality. Chicago really came onto the scene when businessmen in New York were being forced to start abiding by human rights laws on the East coast, so they came out to Chicago to circumvent those laws and get on with business as usual. From that heavy influence of New York money and business relocation Chicago grew into itself as an urban town like a smaller New York and it has stuck and influenced it ever since. From that influence Chicago built some fairly tall buildings, got creative with structural engineering, got into a little height competition with New York, which fed into the stereotype further. The supertalls in the '60s/'70s then solidified it. Just like crime and winter in Chicago is based in truth but is culturally warped, and thus influences the way this city operates, so does that long standing urban New York business haven vibe that has been a part of us for so long.