HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 6:47 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 17,886
Question for the industry folks - has there been some recent leap forward in technology that makes these tall, narrow residential buildings much easier and cheaper to build?

They seem to have sprouted all over Midtown in a short span of time, and now there are like half a dozen active supertall developments or proposals in Chicago.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 6:49 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Does the same developer own the southern half of the site?
Yes, but due to the view corridor easement across the site, anything built there can pretty much only be as tall as the 1920s printing plant building behind the historic tower. Chances are the amenities podium for the hotel will go there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 7:13 PM
JK47 JK47 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Hedge funds, private equity, media firms, etc.

That's what I meant by boutique offices, and there is a market for super prime locations, for companies whose very picky and highly paid employees prefer them. That's why there is tons of office space in Mayfair or Park Avenue. It's a different niche, but it exists.

Anyone involved in any kind of trading is going to want to be in the Loop in order to be as close as they physically can be to either the exchanges or high density fiber. I can't see them moving to a site if it penalizes them in terms of how fast they can execute trades vis a vie competitors with more proximate locations. Likewise law firms probably aren't going to find that area to be very attractive due to its distance from the Daley Center and Federal Plaza, unless of course there's a significant discount to the rent they currently pay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 7:22 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
I think a statement like that implies that a spire is a sure bet but I don't think the majority of his work has spires and I think Burj Khalifa and Kingdom Tower are outliers because the purpose of their design is to be tall almost above all other functions.
I would be very surprised if there is a significant spire here. Given the sensitive location there are strong incentives for them to limit the height - not extend it for vanity’s sake.

What’s more, if we take them at their word that it will be a foot shorter than Trump, what would be the point of spending millions on a spire to only barely miss the #2 spot in Chicago?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 7:29 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Fierce NIMBY responses? Where the hell do you get that from?

10023, very little market for office space here. Too far from the train stations; not even convenient to the L. Remember that several buildings in this area (900 N. Michigan, 645 St. Clair, London Guaranty, 75 E. Wacker, IBM, Tribune, Trump prior to construction) have gone from office to hotel or residential.
Its across the river from Illinois Center/Loop and a short walk (3-4 blocks) from the Grand and State subway station. Office space doesn't make sense everywhere in downtown Chicago, but I think it does here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 7:31 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Question for the industry folks - has there been some recent leap forward in technology that makes these tall, narrow residential buildings much easier and cheaper to build?

They seem to have sprouted all over Midtown in a short span of time, and now there are like half a dozen active supertall developments or proposals in Chicago.
I would assume its because land values have gotten high enough to make construction of such towers economically feasible. Tall and thin towers are typically pretty cost prohibitive since the elevator core tends to take up more square footage of each floor plate the taller the tower is, and keeping it thin reduces the overall space on each floor to work with. Not to mention the additional engineering it takes to build a super tall tower compared to a mid size one.

Just my two cents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 8:00 PM
phanta721 phanta721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 56
1/25/18



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 8:03 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Its across the river from Illinois Center/Loop and a short walk (3-4 blocks) from the Grand and State subway station.
The submarket where office vacancy rates are between 12 and 15 percent, by far the highest in the CBD.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 8:58 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,497
inclusion of a hotel element is smart at that spot. I always recall the Intercon expansion and Waldorf proposal as missed chances. River is where it's at
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 9:00 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,497
and rgarri4, that modeling is awesome, thanks

amazing the city is not far away at all from looking just like that
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 9:05 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The submarket where office vacancy rates are between 12 and 15 percent, by far the highest in the CBD.
I was just saying I dont think transit is a problem, imo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 9:10 PM
Mr Saturn64's Avatar
Mr Saturn64 Mr Saturn64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Philly
Posts: 953
Holy shit! Didn't see this coming! When I went to Chicago, the Tribune Tower was definitely my favorite skyscraper. I loved the way it formed a perfect pair with Wrigley, and a perfect trio with Wrigley and Hotel Intercontinental. I remember seeing on the diagrams that there was going to be an addition to Hotel Intercontinental (which would've been dope), but I didn't expect this. I'm hoping that whatever gets built can be a great building while also respecting the historic aspects of the Tribune Tower.
__________________
Go Phillies!⚾ 🦅Fly Eagles Fly!🦅 🏀Trust the Process!🏀 🏒Go Flyers!🏒
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 9:27 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
...
10023, very little market for office space here. Too far from the train stations; not even convenient to the L. Remember that several buildings in this area (900 N. Michigan, 645 St. Clair, London Guaranty, 75 E. Wacker, IBM, Tribune, Trump prior to construction) have gone from office to hotel or residential.
I think that the office space along Michigan that was built decades ago was built under the assumption that the 1968 plan for a subway from the West Loop under Monroe, splitting north under Columbus/Fairbanks was going to get built. It's still one of the most obvious needs for mass transit in all of Chicago and yet never seems to have political support to make happen. Until/unless that plan or one very similar involving grade-separated transit happens, office will not be a popular choice in the Mag Mile corridor.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
My current active camera gear: Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D, Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6, Nikkor 135mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikkor 55mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikon PB-4 Bellows. Collectible gear: Nikon F4s, Nikon D1, Nikon N4004s (my very first SLR)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 10:19 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
I was just saying I dont think transit is a problem, imo.
But it is, because the Red Line only serves the city lakefront. Office growth for the last 30 years has been pulled to the West Loop to be near the two important suburban stations (the other two Metra stations don't serve the suburbs executives favor nowadays) and the expressways. That's pulled office space away from the L lines, creating a problem for city residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 10:38 PM
Freefall Freefall is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 158
I'm with Chance, I'd love to live in Trib Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 10:42 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I would be very surprised if there is a significant spire here. Given the sensitive location there are strong incentives for them to limit the height - not extend it for vanity’s sake.

What’s more, if we take them at their word that it will be a foot shorter than Trump, what would be the point of spending millions on a spire to only barely miss the #2 spot in Chicago?
I tend to agree but my point was there is no substantive reason to expect that there will or won’t be a spire based solely on the architect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 11:25 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B View Post
Yes, but due to the view corridor easement across the site, anything built there can pretty much only be as tall as the 1920s printing plant building behind the historic tower. Chances are the amenities podium for the hotel will go there.
That's what I was thinking, parking deck for landmark building's condos topped bu amenity space would make the most sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 11:35 PM
Fvn Fvn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 616
A lot of AS+GG's newest work doesn't have spires... but given the height and their past it wouldn't be surprising it it has one. However there is a trend for tall skinny buildings not to have spires, 111 w 57th, central park tower, 432 park ave (maybe that's just a nyc thing though).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 11:56 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,943
Awesome

But 1 foot shy of TTC spire? Really?

Also, I wonder if this will affect Related's development on the spire site, i.e. push them to go higher or something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2018, 12:07 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
But 1 foot shy of TTC spire? Really?
As someone mentioned earlier, it will probably end up taller than TTC. They just haven't announced that yet to not pique the interest/rage of the POTUS. No point in drawing any unwanted attention to this project until the design is finalized and the alderman is fully on board.
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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.