CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS - Page 13

r18tdi · #**241** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

... I couldn't agree more that this height obsession in general that many seem to have is quite childish and silly, I do have to admit that I agree with the point of there being some definite additional visual interest, aesthetically on the skyline, that this tower would provide at the 750'ish version, and would not at 700', as that just wouldn't clear the Wacker mini-plateau by enough...........................for what it's worth!

I'm in exactly the same boat. I don't fetishize height figures or praise height for height's sake, but I was certainly looking forward to this one being visible from further vantage points (especially from the river) and not just hiding behind its neighbors on Wacker.

LouisVanDerWright · #**242** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

I'm in exactly the same boat. I don't fetishize height figures or praise height for height's sake, but I was certainly looking forward to this one being visible from further vantage points (especially from the river) and not just hiding behind its neighbors on Wacker.

I agree about it's place in the skyline. As a building, I doubt the quality would be any less at 700' than at 750' or 780'. However, from a skyline composition perspective, it would be awfully nice to see at least the tip of this building rising above the mini plateau at 650-700'. It would have a nice "wedding cake effect" that would add to the composition of this major cluster of modern office towers.

ardecila · #**243** Posted **Jan 11, 2016, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Got it, thanks!

I actually went to check the same drawing set as skyguy_7. I guess it just didn't display correctly when he screencapped.

HomrQT · #**244** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I actually went to check the same drawing set as skyguy_7. I guess it just didn't display correctly when he screencapped.

MUCH better.

Skyguy_7 · #**245** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 4:15 PM**

My apologies if I caused any mild heart attacks. It would be a shame to lose the building's signature look. Not to worry, it's still very much there.

scalziand · #**246** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 6:36 PM**

It's incredible how subtle the effect actually is.

The Lurker · #**247** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 7:14 AM**

This effect should be striking on partly cloudy days

SamInTheLoop · #**248** Posted **Feb 1, 2016, 3:59 PM**

I have no idea what the prospects are, but I believe Sidley's current lease end date at 1 South Dearborn would work well for a prospective 130 N Franklin anchor lease assuming construction start by early 2017............just throwing it out there as a speculative possibility.......

go go white sox · #**249** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 10:23 AM**

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...rriving-at-130

This one looks to be finally getting started one of my favorite designs of this cycle.

Skyguy_7 · #**250** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 12:32 PM**

Hallelujah, What great news to start our week! Calling all bananas.....

the urban politician · #**251** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 12:55 PM**

^ Spec, or have they quietly landed tenants and financing?

LouisVanDerWright · #**252** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 1:23 PM**

Hopefully they've landed all of the remaining F500 HQs in the suburbs.

rlw777 · #**253** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go go white sox

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...rriving-at-130

This one looks to be finally getting started one of my favorite designs of this cycle.

Awesome news if it's correct.

r18tdi · #**254** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go go white sox

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...rriving-at-130

This one looks to be finally getting started one of my favorite designs of this cycle.

Don't think I've seen any sort of permits or tenant announcements. Maybe they're readying a new parking lot?

SamInTheLoop · #**255** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Maybe they're readying a new parking lot? :shrug

Let's hope not! That would be an epic disappointment.

I don't know if I ever mentioned it, but I believe CoStar (fully realize CoStar is loaded with all kinds of BS info all the time) early in the year had switched anticipated start date for 130 to June or July 2016.......who knows - it could just be that that was correct?.......

This would be huge. There certainly are tenants out there that are looking for space - thinking mainly in the traditional office-using firm types - your law firms, professional and business services, etc - that would be the target tenants for this tower.........

Fingers and toes crossed on this news!!

harryc · #**256** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 5:33 PM**

Is the new building taking both lots (Wash to Randolph) or just the S lot (Wash to W Court) ?

jdcpamba · #**257** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 5:34 PM**

They are digging today.

SolarWind · #**258** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 6:12 PM**

June 6, 2016

the urban politician · #**259** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 6:16 PM**

^ That ain't no parking lot getting built

harryc · #**260** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 6:20 PM**

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/6/6/1...p-construction