CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS - Page 12

trvlr70 · #**221** Posted **Nov 5, 2015, 6:57 PM**

Is there a start date for this beauty?

Skyguy_7 · #**222** Posted **Nov 5, 2015, 7:02 PM**

^I parked in this beauty's lot yesterday and spoke to the parking attendant who actually used to work at the 151 lot.. He said he's not going anywhere until the "building across the street is finished"..Then again, I don't think the buildings are under the same ownership, same developer, contractor or have any other connection whatsoever, and he's also just a parking attendant. So, the short of it is.... Sam?

SamInTheLoop · #**223** Posted **Nov 6, 2015, 5:37 PM**

^ Well......

Since I don't get my economic and financial news from Streetwise, and I sure as shit don't get my editorial content nor arts reviews or social and culture news from the Wall Street Journal, I also definitely do not take any development tips (as a general rule) from parking attendants. This is not to say that someone (perhaps even affiliated with a firm involved/to be involved with the project) definitely did not mention something to this effect to this person. That's a possibility, but even if they did, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the person actually thinks is going to happen (and further, even in a case in which the person does actually think that is what is going to happen at that particular moment, it may still not turn out that way)....

Long way of saying that nothing the parking attendant asserted here is enough to alter my thinking that the real plan is still (likely as long as Tishman Speyer can land an anchor tenant by then) to be in the ground with this one +/- end of 2016....................this is the time to build, I simply would not understand their justification for holding this one for early part of the next cycle (based on my understanding of this macro cycle, as well as goings on at Tishman)..........

munchymunch · #**224** Posted **Dec 17, 2015, 4:39 AM**

With 250,000sf already leased at John Buck's tower... crains is reporting that CNA were talking with Tishman about leasing in this tower. Tishman has 750,000sf at the CNA Tower.

Quote:

CNA also had advanced discussions on a similar deal with New York-based developer Tishman Speyer Properties, which has an office development site across the street from Buck's project on Franklin Street, Gerber said.

Looks like they really missed out.

Skyguy_7 · #**225** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the stacking plan on the website clearly shows a building with 50 floors, not 53 as we previously had heard, so maybe this one has been downsized a touch?

losing 3 floors would equal roughly 42', bringing this one down to the 710' range.

^Pretty good estimate. This drawing from the bid set shows 50 floors at a total height of 699' to parapet :/

Steely Dan · #**226** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 4:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^Pretty good estimate. This drawing from the bid set shows 50 floors at a total height of 699' to parapet :/

thanks for the update.

BVictor1 · #**227** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 7:00 PM**

Booo...

HomrQT · #**228** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 7:28 PM**

This thing went from a rockstar to just so-so. Happens far too often here.

ardecila · #**229** Posted **Dec 31, 2015, 10:25 PM**

^ Because of the reduction in height? That's hogwash.

Three fewer floors on the building does not diminish the quality of the design or the beauty of the facets.

Zapatan · #**230** Posted **Dec 31, 2015, 11:32 PM**

I agree, the height reduction is hardly noticeable. We always knew the building would be around 700, now build!

SamInTheLoop · #**231** Posted **Jan 7, 2016, 6:09 PM**

Yeah, this design will be fantastic at 750' or 700'.

However, do not count out the taller version by any means. Think about it: each of River Point, 150 Riverside, and 151 Franklin either added 3-4 floors, or - if they're we're two versions floating around from the beginning of the design, went with the taller/larger of the two versions. It's possible that if Tishman decides to go spec, or lands an anchor/combination of anchors less than 200,000 sq ft or so, that they may opt for the shorter/smaller version.......possible, but with this cycle expected to go on for a few more years at minimum, and possibly/just maybe up to 5 or so.......it's leaving money on the table if your Tishman not to go just about up to what is entitled for in the PD.......

So, if I have to guess, it would be that they'll opt for the 53/54 story version at the end of the day........we'll see......

Also, it's interesting - back at the first community meeting for this - I think Aprilish of last year, I believe it was BVic that questioned/pointed out some nice visual benefit of this breaking thru the (I'll call it roughly) 640'-680' plateau-like effect of the newer Wacker towers.......the architect (was it Krueck or Sexton? I forget actually) readily acknowledged that and maintained that it was a reason to go for some additional height - up to 750'+............although 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!

rlw777 · #**232** Posted **Jan 7, 2016, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Yeah, this design will be fantastic at 750' or 700'.

However, do not count out the taller version by any means. Think about it: each of River Point, 150 Riverside, and 151 Franklin either added 3-4 floors, or - if they're we're two versions floating around from the beginning of the design, went with the taller/larger of the two versions. It's possible that if Tishman decides to go spec, or lands an anchor/combination of anchors less than 200,000 sq ft or so, that they may opt for the shorter/smaller version.......possible, but with this cycle expected to go on for a few more years at minimum, and possibly/just maybe up to 5 or so.......it's leaving money on the table if your Tishman not to go just about up to what is entitled for in the PD.......

So, if I have to guess, it would be that they'll opt for the 53/54 story version at the end of the day........we'll see......

Also, it's interesting - back at the first community meeting for this - I think Aprilish of last year, I believe it was BVic that questioned/pointed out some nice visual benefit of this breaking thru the (I'll call it roughly) 640'-680' plateau-like effect of the newer Wacker towers.......the architect (was it Krueck or Sexton? I forget actually) readily acknowledged that and maintained that it was a reason to go for some additional height - up to 750'+............although 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!

Agreed at whatever height they go with this building will be fantastic if it gets off the ground.

I actually don't mind the height obsession though I think it's just city pride. I've traveled quite a bit and nobody anywhere is as proud of their buildings as Chicagoans.

Domer2019 · #**233** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 2:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777

Agreed at whatever height they go with this building will be fantastic if it gets off the ground.

I actually don't mind the height obsession though I think it's just city pride. I've traveled quite a bit and nobody anywhere is as proud of their buildings as Chicagoans.

And as BVic was referenced to mention, height can be aesthetic beyond a mere measuring contest

BVictor1 · #**234** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 4:17 AM**

It'll be interesting to see if Tyshman can get this off the ground in this cycle.

SamInTheLoop · #**235** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 3:00 PM**

^ I continue to think they'll be successful in doing so.....however, they're likely going to want to be in the ground by first half of 2017 at latest........I still think there's a chance they may go spec, and at any rate have a good chance to start by late this year......fundamentals and capital markets are really well aligned this year to make this happen!

k1052 · #**236** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 4:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

didnt CNA commit to a good chunk of this thing?

No they're going to the Buck tower at 151.

HomrQT · #**237** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 1:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ Because of the reduction in height? That's hogwash.

Three fewer floors on the building does not diminish the quality of the design or the beauty of the facets.

I was under the impression the cool angled glass facade was taken away and we're now left with a plain box. Is that not the case?

The Lurker · #**238** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 5:50 AM**

Looking closely at the diagram side profile it looks like the fun angles are still there.

ardecila · #**239** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 8:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I was under the impression the cool angled glass facade was taken away and we're now left with a plain box. Is that not the case?

No. The angles in the facade have always been subtle and don't show well in orthogonal drawings.

You need light reflecting off the glass to notice the facets really.

HomrQT · #**240** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker

Looking closely at the diagram side profile it looks like the fun angles are still there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

No. The angles in the facade have always been subtle and don't show well in orthogonal drawings.

You need light reflecting off the glass to notice the facets really.

Got it, thanks!