CHICAGO | General Discussions

[the urban politician]

^ So your entire modus operandi around here is, "If The Urban Politician says it, dispute it." Got it.

I've got enough on my plate that I simply don't have time nor feel the need to defend every one of my stances to you. I believe what I believe, I stand by what I think, and am not interested in your cross analysis of every sentence that I write. As I told you before in another thread, don't bother.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I didn't mean so much as raw height, but overall density and number of high rises, but seeing this list, makes me think I'm probably still wrong by a good chunk.

even if you drop down to a lower height threshold, say 500', the south loop would still only have eight buildings over 500' with the completion of 1000M and NEMA II.

lots of US cities have more than eight 500+ footers.

instead of making comparisons nationally, it's more useful to think of the south loop, by itself, as potentially having the tallest skyline in the entire midwest (outside of chicago, of course).

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by Rooster slayer

Good stuff, but umm yeah, South loop needs some more high density towers. First pic says it all.

Soon...

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not quite.

if 1000M and NEMA II are eventually built to their anticipated heights (and that's still a big "IF"), that would give the south loop four towers over 700' tall.

there are currently 10 US cities that have more than four towers over 700' tall.


US cities ranked by # of skyscrapers >700' (including U/C):

1. new york - 81*
2. chicago - 25
3. houston - 11
4. los angeles - 9
5. philadelphia - 7
6. miami - 6
7. san francisco - 5
8. atlanta - 5
9. seattle - 5
10. dallas - 5
11. minneapolis - 3
12. boston - 3
13. cleveland - 2
14. detroit - 2
15. charlotte - 2
16. pittsburgh - 2
17. denver - 2
18. oklahoma city - 1
19. indianapolis - 1
20. mobile - 1
21. las vegas - 1
22. atlantic city - 1

(*) includes four >700' towers located across the hudson in jersey city.


but with four towers >700', the south loop would have a taller skyline than any other midwest city outside of chicago itself.

Before it gets too off topic its interesting to note that by 1985:

1. New York City - 19
2. Houston - 8
3. Chicago -6

[AMWChicago]

Originally Posted by The Lurker

Before it gets too off topic its interesting to note that by 1985:

1. New York City - 19
2. Houston - 8
3. Chicago -6

I count 9 for Houston by '85. Wow that's eye opening. Houston's skyline definitely is bulky and holds its own, but Chicago certainly ran away with overall density and height. The South Loop is a great example of the continued expansion of the skyline. And certainly would rank among largest in US if isolated. Similar to that of Brooklyn in Ny.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by AMWChicago

I count 9 for Houston by '85. Wow that's eye opening. Houston's skyline definitely is bulky and holds its own, but Chicago certainly ran away with overall density and height. The South Loop is a great example of the continued expansion of the skyline. And certainly would rank among largest in US if isolated. Similar to that of Brooklyn in Ny.

Yeah, we really blew past them in the late 80s to 90s. So many big towers put up in those years. This boom has been quite similar.

Anyway, in that curbed article that was linked, the one rendering of the tower gives a weird angle cutting off the tower's final section. Weird looking, but probably just the angle

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by The Lurker

Before it gets too off topic its interesting to note that by 1985:

1. New York City - 19
2. Houston - 8
3. Chicago -6

The 80's oil boom. Dallas and Houston have some of the world's best PoMo architecture.

[Steely Dan]

^ yeah, the oil boom of the early 80s was also a MAJOR skyscraper boom time in texas.

texas built a total of 12 700+ footers between 1980 and 1987 (8 in houston, 4 in dallas). chicago only built 2 during that same time span.

but since 1987, the entire state of texas has only managed to build 1 700+ footer, while chicago has built 18 (including U/C) during that same time span.

[chicubs111]

would rather see salseforce occupy Old post office space and leave this tower for a more signature design this site deserves...Chicago i feel has lost there "make no small plan" groove when it comes to architecture.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Chicago i feel has lost there "make no small plan" groove when it comes to architecture.

curious take......

considering that chicago is currently experiencing one of the biggest skyscraper building booms in the city's entire history.

[chicubs111]

our building boom is producing alot of quality midrise infill in westloop...a handful of very nice towers...a handful of forgettable towers...a signature tower with Vista...alot of downsized would be signature towers in pipeline if they come to fruition.. spire site, wolf point site..wouldn't be surprised with tribune site to be in that list... i just dont think we will ever see a Sears tower sized building (height wise) in this city again because of lack of sites that have that demand for something large and where people want to be are dwindling and developers are playing it safe with the smaller towers for these prime sites (600ft to 900ft).

[Steely Dan]

^ you're still typing that smack dab in the middle of one of the biggest skycraper buidling booms the city has ever witnessed. 4 towers >800' currently U/C, with a a 5th on the way shortly (that's never happened before, ever, in the entire history of chicago).

and then you throw in plans for the 78, lincoln yards, riverline, 400 NLSD, Trib addition, NEMA II, LSE site I, 1000M, etc. and it becomes crystal clear to me that chicago is absolutely still making big plans.

a disappointing height outcome for wolf point south does not change that reality. it just demonstrates that some are getting spoiled.

[the urban politician]

Actually 2 more > 800 footers are on the way soon. Salesforce and OCS

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Actually 2 more > 800 footers are on the way soon. Salesforce and OCS

yes, but i was speaking of imminent projects.

salesforce is still at least a year away from construction according to what has been reported (Q1 2020).

[ardecila]

^ Most of our tallest new towers are residential now. Texas has never been a place where highrise living was desirable, so its skylines are at the total mercy of the office market and its desire (or lack thereof) to build marquee towers.

In fact, Chicago is really the outlier in the US for that one, along with NYC, Miami and (sorta) SF, but as noted recently, we don't have anywhere near the scarcity of land those cities do, so it's got to have a big cultural factor also.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ you're still typing that smack dab in the middle of one of the biggest skycraper buidling booms the city has ever witnessed. 4 towers >800' currently U/C, with a a 5th on the way shortly (that's never happened before, ever, in the entire history of chicago).

and then you throw in plans for the 78, lincoln yards, riverline, 400 NLSD, Trib addition, NEMA II, LSE site I, 1000M, etc. and it becomes crystal clear to me that chicago is absolutely still making big plans.

a disappointing height outcome for wolf point south does not change that reality. it just demonstrates that some are getting spoiled.

I still think we are under performing ..call me spoiled but when i see NYC having like 12t o possible 15 towers over about 1000 ft or higher going up...basically about 3 times the amount of all our buildings UC at 600 ft plus i cant wonder why Chicago isn't building atleast a 1/3 whats going up in NYC..throughout its history chicago was alwasy about half ( or less) of what NYC was buiilding (buildings over 500ft)...if they had 20 buildings over 500ft being built Chicago was about 10... feel like NYC just exploded with the construction on another scale and were just doing OK relative... Thats why i get upset with super prime sites like wolf point just getting 800 ft is such a letdown..what type of prime property can warrant a super tall then?

[Steely Dan]

^ chicago is doing great. Better than ever, in fact.

It was new york that was underpreforming until recently. Land values are an order of magnitude higher in prime manhattan. Chicago never should have been close to sniffing even half of nyc's skyline.

Now, chicago is chugging along, doing what's it's always done, throwing up giant towers when it has no real reason to be doing so and new york has finally lived up to the potential created by its extreme wealth and extreme land crunch and has entered the stratosphere.

If you can only measure chicago's skyline success against what new york is doing, then you are going to be forever wallowing in self-pity. New York has left chicago in its dust, chicago will not ever again be anywhere remotely close to NYC in the skyline department.

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I still think we are under performing ..call me spoiled but when i see NYC having like 12t o possible 15 towers over about 1000 ft or higher going up...basically about 3 times the amount of all our buildings UC at 600 ft plus i cant wonder why Chicago isn't building atleast a 1/3 whats going up in NYC..throughout its history chicago was alwasy about half ( or less) of what NYC was buiilding (buildings over 500ft)...if they had 20 buildings over 500ft being built Chicago was about 10... feel like NYC just exploded with the construction on another scale and were just doing OK relative... Thats why i get upset with super prime sites like wolf point just getting 800 ft is such a letdown..what type of prime property can warrant a super tall then?

Part of it is the difference in land values, which pressure NYC buildings to go taller, all else equal. For example, one of those 1000+ towers in NYC is 111w57, which at a height of 1428 ft will have ~316000 square feet of space. Wolf Point East, which will be less than half as tall at 629 ft, will have almost exactly twice the square footage (628500). Vista is ~1200 feet tall, and has almost 5x the square footage of 111w57.

Building a supertall, superskinny tower like 111w57 is a really expensive way to get revenue-generating square footage. If you aren't space constrained like NYC, it makes a lot more financial sense to build less tall but on a larger lot. Of course I'm cherry picking a bit, but I think it's a good illustration. It's not that Chicago isn't having a building boom, it's that our building boom isn't as squeezed into narrow needle towers.

[the urban politician]

^ Great point

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Now, chicago is chugging along, doing what's it's always done, throwing up giant towers when it has no real reason to be doing so

Chicago definitely has plenty of reasons to build skyscrapers