HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1041  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 5:48 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,980
The surface lot is sort of like how some other developments are - Whole Foods just up Kingsbury has surface parking next to it, plus the garage, for example. If they really want some surface parking, why not just build an open bottom level like at the grocery store just south of there at Halsted/Madison under Skybridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1042  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 6:06 PM
trvlr70 trvlr70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 2,232
OMG! I just can't imagine the Thompson Center getting torn down. But something has to give. It's been sitting there rotting for too long. Perhaps the deferred maintenance costs have been exaggerated. Sell the place to Sterling Bay and let them fix it creatively.

Last edited by trvlr70; Oct 14, 2015 at 1:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1043  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 6:15 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc5680 View Post
This is a pretty backwards rationale that lacks foresight. If planning and development always only accommodated current conditions, you would never see any progress.
No no don't make it into an absolute statement 'we should only accommodate current conditions' that's not what this is. This is a realist rationale that takes both the current context and the future of the site into consideration. Progress is made in this way all the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1044  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 7:21 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by trvlr70 View Post
OMG! I just imagine the Thompson Center getting torn down. But something has to give. It's been sitting there rotting for too long. Perhaps the deferred maintenance costs have been exaggerated. Sell the place to Sterling Bay and let them fix it creatively.
I think the only way for the building to stay would be a hotel conversion. Though given the size and prominence of the site I think a new, larger hotel and residential project is much more likely. Either way I'll be happy to see it back on the tax rolls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1045  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 7:26 PM
deebirch deebirch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc5680 View Post
This is a pretty backwards rationale that lacks foresight. If planning and development always only accommodated current conditions, you would never see any progress.
Have you been to this area? Examine the picture below and explain why any developer/investor would make the bold assumption that parking is not required to make the development more accessible as whole.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1046  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 7:28 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,082
^^ Yeah, if the plan is - and it sounds like it - for the state to move out, then I definitely think the most likely scenario will in fact be demolition and new development. I suppose there's an outside chance for someone really creative and adventurous, and with quite healthy risk appetite to come along and do an adaptive reuse.......but to my mind, much less likely scenario.....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1047  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 10:12 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetline View Post
although I can't say I see that as an ideal location for a hotel
Plenty of on-site, self parking and an on-site movie theater.... sounds like a possible combination for families driving into the area, if that is the target market. Though I always felt the IMD could be a candidate area for for such properties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1048  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 10:15 PM
jc5680's Avatar
jc5680 jc5680 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago—West Loop
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by deebirch View Post
Have you been to this area? Examine the picture below and explain why any developer/investor would make the bold assumption that parking is not required to make the development more accessible as whole.
Quote:
This area is not a friendly pedestrian experience, so it makes sense to cater to drivers.
I am quite familiar with the area, and nowhere did I say there should be no parking. My specific issue with your comment is your assertion that it should cater to drivers. Development continues to march down Division as a fast clip. Flippantly writing off the area to something relegated to cars does little more than set the table for more of the mess we have in the up along Clyborn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1049  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 11:42 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
this article says he merely wants to sell it.



full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...013-story.html


Rauner wants to put Thompson Center on the block

October 13, 2015, 5:29 PM



The James R. Thompson Center, architecturally significant to some and an emblem of bureaucratic government excess to others, would be sold and likely demolished to be rebuilt as a privately owned residential, office and retail space under a plan Gov. Bruce Rauner proposed Tuesday.

"From a pure financial point of view, this is a compelling opportunity for the people of Illinois," Rauner said.


"This building is ineffective. For the people who work here, all of whom are eager to move somewhere else, it's noisy. It's hard to meet with your colleagues. It's hard to move through the building, very ineffective, noise from downstairs, smells from the food court all get into the offices," Rauner said at a news conference in the lobby of state government's Chicago headquarters at Clark and Randolph streets.

The 17-story, 980,000-square-foot building was designed by Helmut Jahn and opened in 1985 at a cost of $172 million — twice what had been expected. Its sweeping design featuring massive glass panels was always controversial. Its open-air atrium design has proved costly and inefficient to maintain, heat and cool. Rauner said the building needs more than $100 million in maintenance that's been deferred.



Rauner said he wouldn't "comment on the aesthetics" of the building. Later, he told reporters, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Jahn, the architect, criticized...

That goal "has not been upheld by the administrations that followed," said Jahn, who added that the selection of stores at street level "lacks style."



"The best way to save the building, and to improve it, is to repurpose it,"...


The first-year governor said he has talked to some developers and doubted the building could be repurposed.

"It's just not usable for much of anything. The good news is it's really just structural beams and some glass so it doesn't cost that much to take down, and it could be replaced by a very positive, very impactful new building," he said.

Under Rauner's plan, the building would be sold for cash at public auction, and an estimated 2,200 state workers would be sent to ...

Rauner said site appraisals are in process, and the goal is to have the transaction completed within one year. With towering cranes dotting the city's ...



The most valuable use of the land almost certainly calls for the building to be razed and replaced with a higher-density building, said ...

Schenberg noted that while preserving the building would be "a challenge," developers "can be very inventive putting space to use" and have successfully repurposed other architectural oddities ...

Rauner said private development would return the property to the Chicago and Cook County property tax rolls and provide new revenue to the city. The governor estimated a new structure could generate $20 million a year to the city and its public schools.

"This is one of the most valuable, nicest blocks in the entire state, let alone in the city of Chicago," he said.

...

But the former Republican governor fully blamed Rauner's predecessor, Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, for failing to authorize funding needed to maintain and repair the Chicago office building as well as the Executive Mansion in Springfield.

"The condition of the building, the deferred maintenance and the costs ...


"They let both buildings go to hell," he said.

Carpets are ripped and held together with tape. Inside, cockroaches can routinely be seen skittering around on walls, and last year the ninth floor had to be treated for bedbugs.

In 2009, a 600-pound granite panel fell off one of the columns of the building's pedestrian arcade and crashed onto Clark Street. The accident, which caused no injuries, prompted the state to remove all the arcade's panels.

...


Quinn's predecessor, Rod Blagojevich once proposed selling the building and leasing it back. He later proposed mortgaging the building to help close a budget gap, ....


....
















97 comments in that link so far. That's a lot for the tribune that has a paywall.
__________________
facebook

Last edited by bnk; Oct 13, 2015 at 11:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1050  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 11:57 PM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnk View Post
The 17-story, 980,000-square-foot building was designed by Helmut Jahn and opened in 1985 ...
This is what gobsmacks me. It is only 30 years old and already it's (possibly) being tossed onto the rubbish heap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1051  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 12:08 AM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnk View Post
a new structure could generate $20 million a year to the city and its public schools.
I am constantly bugged by these tax revenue arguments. It is true that if private, it will return taxes. But whatever is done with this property/structure will simply take away from something that would have been done at a different location, meaning less in revenue elsewhere. The way to generate more in revenue is by increasing overall demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1052  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 2:18 AM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by VKChaz View Post
I am constantly bugged by these tax revenue arguments. It is true that if private, it will return taxes. But whatever is done with this property/structure will simply take away from something that would have been done at a different location, meaning less in revenue elsewhere. The way to generate more in revenue is by increasing overall demand.
But it is a unique location, objectively worth more than a location at, say, 1800 W VanBuren.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1053  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 2:36 AM
The Pimp's Avatar
The Pimp The Pimp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago/Hamilton Lake Indiana
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardL View Post
This is what gobsmacks me. It is only 30 years old and already it's (possibly) being tossed onto the rubbish heap.
Tear the ole bitch down! lol!!! Have any of you been in that dump recently? Let me tell you it's a shit bomb!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1054  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 2:39 AM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pimp View Post
Tear the ole bitch down! lol!!! Have any of you been in that dump recently? Let me tell you it's a shit bomb!
It really is.
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1055  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 4:37 AM
eaguir3 eaguir3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 156
I work at the attorney general's office and the building is a complete waste of space. The carpets are disgusting. Tear this piece of crap down! I'll gladly move to Bilandic or 69 W. Washington.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1056  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 2:19 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaguir3 View Post
I work at the attorney general's office and the building is a complete waste of space. The carpets are disgusting. Tear this piece of crap down! I'll gladly move to Bilandic or 69 W. Washington.
There isn't enough space for all of the state's employees from Thompson.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1057  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 2:39 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,309
^And thus we create office demand. Plenty of room at 151 or 130 N Franklin. ..Or the Class B space that their future tenants vacate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1058  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 2:49 PM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
God i hope Sam is right and 130 goes up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1059  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 2:53 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,845
The Thompson center is a full city block, and I think Sears is the only skyscraper that takes up a full block. So they would likely split the block into two or more parcels? It'd be tempting to do one big planned development, but might be easier to develop in smaller pieces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1060  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 3:04 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by VKChaz View Post
I am constantly bugged by these tax revenue arguments. It is true that if private, it will return taxes. But whatever is done with this property/structure will simply take away from something that would have been done at a different location, meaning less in revenue elsewhere. The way to generate more in revenue is by increasing overall demand.
I'm not convinced that redevelopment here would suck projects away from elsewhere. If the block is sold as one parcel, given the price it will probably command, it will go to a large competent developer who has ready access to major capital to do a major additive project. Presuming that the sky will literally be the limit on the zoning/ density the tax gain against the land area will be enormous. Not to mention the significant ancillary tax revenue that will be generated via sales (highest in the city), hotel, etc).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.