HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 5:06 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,913
Cool CHICAGO | 301 & 321 S Wacker Drive | 2 x 48 FLOORS

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...r-willis-tower

November 02, 2016
Twin office towers planned on Wacker Drive

By Ryan Ori




Quote:
A venture led by Chicago developer John Murphy is buying two Wacker Drive parcels near Willis Tower where it plans to build twin 48-story office buildings.

Murphy Development Group has a letter of intent to buy the parcels at 301 and 321 S. Wacker Drive from Oak Brook-based InSite Real Estate, Murphy said. He declined to disclose terms of the deal, which he said is expected to close before the end of the year.

Quote:
Murphy and investment partner Walsh Investment, an affiliate of Walsh Construction, plan to build 1.2 million-square-foot office buildings on each of the sites,

Quote:
The Wacker Drive sites are already zoned, and the proposed buildings have been designed by Kohn Pederson Fox Associates, the architecture firm that designed 311 S. Wacker. Each tower could be completed within two years of a signed lease, Murphy said.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 5:17 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,913
CHICAGO | 301 & 321 S. Wacker Drive | 2 x 48 FLOORS

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...r-willis-tower

November 02, 2016
Twin office towers planned on Wacker Drive

By Ryan Ori



Quote:
A venture led by Chicago developer John Murphy is buying two Wacker Drive parcels near Willis Tower where it plans to build twin 48-story office buildings.

Murphy Development Group has a letter of intent to buy the parcels at 301 and 321 S. Wacker Drive from Oak Brook-based InSite Real Estate, Murphy said. He declined to disclose terms of the deal, which he said is expected to close before the end of the year.

Murphy and investment partner Walsh Investment, an affiliate of Walsh Construction, plan to build 1.2 million-square-foot office buildings on each of the sites, Murphy said. InSite, led by longtime developer Gerald Kostelny, will remain involved in the development after selling the West Loop land to the new venture, Murphy said.

The two-tower project is expected to cost more than $800 million, said Murphy, who said the venture has been in early talks with potential tenants that could kick off construction. The venture does not plan to build either tower on speculation, or without space leased in advance, Murphy said.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 5:20 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,913
Perhaps one of the moderators can edit the heading to look like the read of the Chicago threat titles.

As one might notice, I'm not used to starting new threads.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 5:21 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,168
^ Interesting. I was down there yesterday wandering around 311 S. Wacker and remembered that there was supposed to be 2 more identical towers to 311 S. Wacker rotated inward. They were canceled in the 90s I believe. Funny how that happens.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 5:24 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 751
[QUOTE=BVictor1;7610501]http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...r-willis-tower

November 02, 2016
Twin office towers planned on Wacker Drive

Great news. A couple thoughts:

1. Is the first one to launch supposed to be the lot NW of 311 Wacker or SW? I hope it's the SW first, because...

2. I've always envisioned a building taller than 311 Wacker but shorter than Sears going in that NW space between 311 and Sears. It's always felt like the gap between those two buildings is just a tad too large in the skyline, like it's missing a piece, and something with an organic shape would be a great complement to the broad Sears and create a nice central cluster. Something like Adrian Smith's Clean Technology Tower (http://smithgill.com/work/clean_technology_tower_1/) or maybe Gensler's Salesforce...

3. Would like to see one be mixed-use to further encourage the development of the Loop as more than just office, but can't complain with Riverline going in and the old office building across from 235 Van Buren being converted to residential, I suppose...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 5:35 PM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 189
Exciting, but until they get actual leases going, I won't get my hopes up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 5:46 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,719
^^ I agree with the mixed-use angle. I've always felt that this next S Wacker drive cluster of towers to go up should perhaps primarily be office, but should also include hotel and residential, and in doing so would also make a nice transition to 235/Riverline/Printer's Row, etc.....

Regardless, great news that these sites have a new owner that has rapidly become a major development/redevelopment player downtown this cycle, and should bring some much-needed energy to efforts to get some new development started at the South end of Wacker.

Encouraging that they've engaged a highly competent and experienced architect for office towers.

After the NW corner of the Loop (150, RP, 151, 130, GG), the (not W of expressway - mindlessly follow Google/hipsters, folks) South end of Wacker is the next concentration of major office development downtown.....as in addition to these towers, there is also a site at 401 S Wacker for a large tower......
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 6:05 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,635
Boom! Continues...

November 02, 2016
Twin office towers planned on Wacker Drive

By RYAN ORI



"A venture led by Chicago developer John Murphy is buying two Wacker Drive parcels near Willis Tower where it plans to build twin 48-story office buildings.

Murphy Development Group has a letter of intent to buy the parcels at 301 and 321 S. Wacker Drive from Oak Brook-based InSite Real Estate, Murphy said. He declined to disclose terms of the deal, which he said is expected to close before the end of the year..."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...r-willis-tower

The article indicates that the architect is Kohn Peterson Fox.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 6:09 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 751
[QUOTE=sentinel;7610578]Boom! Continues...

Thanks for posting! BVic got to it a little while ago, and there's already a separate thread.

It's not tagged with Chicago yet, so the discussion's at Highrise & Supertall Proposals. I think we have quite a few threads lost over there without the Chicago tag at this point, if anything can be done (1326 Michigan, Union Station, etc.)...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 6:40 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 813
why always with the attempted twins down there
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 7:10 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,391
Nice but we have other office proposals still lingering without signed anchors nor financing. Kind of ho hum until there is reason to believe it will move forward. Even 130 N Franklin seems to be running in place
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 7:10 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,635
Oops, didn't see this until now - thanks BVic and Steely!
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 7:29 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Nice but we have other office proposals still lingering without signed anchors nor financing. Kind of ho hum until there is reason to believe it will move forward. Even 130 N Franklin seems to be running in place

No doubt.....this proposal may not come to fruition until next cycle potentially - or this particular scheme may never actually happen.......nonetheless, the fact that these parcels are now controlled by a credible developer with an apparently real development plan is indeed meaningful.....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 7:33 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
this proposal may not come to fruition until next cycle potentially - or this particular scheme may never actually happen.......
or the third option, one of the twins gets built now and the other never comes to fruition.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 7:56 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,635
^^ That's exactly what happened with 311 S. Wacker, no?
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 7:59 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
or the third option, one of the twins gets built now and the other never comes to fruition.
That seems most likely. I mean, originally it was to be a trio of identical towers and only one was built. Now it's a pair of new identical towers, and seems likely only one will get built. 161 N Clark was supposed to have 181 N Clark to pair with it, never happened. 540 W Madison was supposed to have a mirror image tower, never happened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 8:23 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,259
Hopefully they do SW first so that if the second fizzles, we're left with a park/plaza and not a parking lot. Which wouldn't be that bad. But it'll probably be the opposite.
__________________
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2016, 11:42 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,108
I think it's pretty questionable how much demand there will be for both office towers in this location. They may be able to land an anchor tenant or two but not if a very similar structure is planned to go up on the same block from the same developer. Willing to bet one of the sites changes programming to hotel/resi or combo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 2:57 PM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
Am I missing somthing? Where's the "twin" in the picture. It looks like one building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 7:59 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE View Post
Am I missing somthing? Where's the "twin" in the picture. It looks like one building.
The twin would go to the north of the structure you see.
__________________
titanic1
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 1:38 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.