SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199537)

UPChicago Aug 14, 2015 1:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7129156)
Next cycle? Do you mean next year? They might as well not be going through the planning commission at all if they're planning on next cycle.



I think we can rule out Tishman building on spec. They are most likely just still shopping for an anchor tenant nothing too concerning here. You don't stop doing maintenance on a property out of speculation.

Exactly, this building cycle just began. Anything being proposed now that isn't build in this cycle will likely end up cancelled in my opinion.

hawainpanda Aug 14, 2015 2:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 7128958)
In regards to 130 n Franklin, I have a feeling that tishman is gunning for the first one to start an office building next cycle. At this point I think they just want to get everything set up before starting.

I'm not even sure what constitutes the "beginning" or "end" of a cycle....Chicago is constantly building, with the exception of the recent recession was there ever a year Chicago did not have at least 5 projects underconstruction?

Steely Dan Aug 14, 2015 2:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawainpanda (Post 7129217)
with the exception of the recent recession was there ever a year Chicago did not have at least 5 projects under construction?

yes. pretty much every year in the 1990s after the commercial real estate crash in the early '90s.

it was a painfully boring time for skyscraper construction fans in chicago (and most other US cities).

SamInTheLoop Aug 14, 2015 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7129156)
Next cycle? Do you mean next year? They might as well not be going through the planning commission at all if they're planning on next cycle.



I think we can rule out Tishman building on spec. They are most likely just still shopping for an anchor tenant nothing too concerning here. You don't stop doing maintenance on a property out of speculation.




Yeah, absolutely.

Certainly if we were to go through a downturn much earlier than most expect, than Tishman Speyer would be well-positioned to be first out of the gates for next cycle.

However, most think that this cycle has some really decent legs still, and thus a favorable office demand outlook for the next few years, so base case I believe Tishman is fully planning to - as they've said earlier this year - start this one by year-end 2016. I wouldn't read too much into them resurfacing the parking lot, if it's potentially got (up to) another 12-15 months of revenue producing life to it. They are speaking with tenants right now, as they continue to over the coming months and quarters until they land their anchor(s). Now, if they were planning to start work by the end of this year - or even first part of next year, that would be very strange to redo the lot this summer.....but that was never the case......

I think this one really has the potential to be one of the absolute design gems of this boom/cycle. I think this is one of those cases in which the design of this office project will result in a true competitive advantage in the market for tenants - that's very much not always the case with new office towers.......but here I think it will really be at least one significant draw for multiple tenants that Tishman WILL land.....

BVictor1 Aug 20, 2015 11:36 PM

Yeah, went to plan commission and I asked around...

130 N. Franklin passed.

aaron38 Aug 21, 2015 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7137017)
Yeah, went to plan commission and I asked around...
130 N. Franklin passed.

Does that mean they're clear to build? Is construction expected to start soon?

go go white sox Aug 25, 2015 2:03 PM

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...orth-franklin/

I think this is and will be my favorite project so far. It's going to be a beauty

sentinel Aug 25, 2015 3:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 7137450)
Does that mean they're clear to build? Is construction expected to start soon?

Most likely when they reach a certain financing threshold...speaking of, has there ever been anything announced for this building, in terms of financing?

SamInTheLoop Aug 26, 2015 4:50 PM

^ No, but keep in mind that Tishman Speyer's previously mentioned target for groundbreaking here is very late 2016.......so a lot of time still to land an anchor tenant and nail down financing and still be able to hit that timeline goal........

munchymunch Oct 1, 2015 2:08 AM

They changed the song in the video.

It's now dull and generic. :hell:

SamInTheLoop Nov 4, 2015 5:35 PM

Website now up
 
Stand-alone website has been launched - link below. Previously, it had only been a page (or pages) on the Tishman Speyer company website.


http://www.130northfranklin.com/

Steely Dan Nov 4, 2015 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7222886)
Stand-alone website has been launched - link below. Previously, it had only been a page (or pages) on the Tishman Speyer company website.


http://www.130northfranklin.com/

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.

SamInTheLoop Nov 4, 2015 5:51 PM

^ I know it seems odd saying this (as it's the developers' own site!), but I wouldn't assume that it's 50 instead of 53.......I've seen it so many times - and just recently - that info exactly such as this posted and presumably updated on the developer's own site, is not what the developer is presently planning to build: It took Hines quite some time to update their website to the expanded (by I think 3-4 floors) version of RiverPoint (after it was widely known that they did upsize) for example......also, Buck (I'm not checking right now, if it's recently been changed) I think still has its website stacking plan for 151 at 32 floors, even though they've really been at 36 for the last nearly 2 years (that's caused some confusion here as well).......these office developers don't design these websites really for the public, they design them for tenants and tenant brokers, etc........most tenants could care less if a building is 53 vs 50 stories - or 36 vs 32 stories (unless they are planned to go on floors 51-52, or 33-35!!).....it's other info and details they are most concerned with (and a lot of them aren't going to a public website necessarily even to get those).....

BVictor1 Nov 4, 2015 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7222918)
^ I know it seems odd saying this (as it's the developers' own site!), but I wouldn't assume that it's 50 instead of 53.......I've seen it so many times - and just recently - that info exactly such as this posted and presumably updated on the developer's own site, is not what the developer is presently planning to build: It took Hines quite some time to update their website to the expanded (by I think 3-4 floors) version of RiverPoint (after it was widely known that they did upsize) for example......also, Buck (I'm not checking right now, if it's recently been changed) I think still has its website stacking plan for 151 at 32 floors, even though they've really been at 36 for the last nearly 2 years (that's caused some confusion here as well).......these office developers don't design these websites really for the public, they design them for tenants and tenant brokers, etc........most tenants could care less if a building is 53 vs 50 stories - or 36 vs 32 stories (unless they are planned to go on floors 51-52, or 33-35!!).....it's other info and details they are most concerned with (and a lot of them aren't going to a public website necessarily even to get those).....

Perhaps, but this site was just launched and you'd think that have the most current information on it.

SamInTheLoop Nov 4, 2015 6:51 PM

^ I've learned through experience not to think that.........

Tom Servo Nov 4, 2015 10:18 PM

Big fan. Will fit in nicely with all the other gigantic Franklin towers.

Krueck + Sexton need more work.


http://www.130northfranklin.com/site...usk_04.12a.jpg

i_am_hydrogen Nov 4, 2015 10:38 PM

^Daaamn! I just soiled myself.

munchymunch Nov 4, 2015 11:47 PM

No Kidding, this building is a fucking Masterpiece.

marothisu Nov 4, 2015 11:54 PM

Really hope they don't mess up the glass. I really like the design.

patriotizzy Nov 5, 2015 6:27 PM

That base looks like a stunner. I can just imagine walking up to those shiny steel columns and looking up at the super tall ceiling in complete awe.

trvlr70 Nov 5, 2015 6:57 PM

Is there a start date for this beauty?

Skyguy_7 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 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 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 Dec 30, 2015 4:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7222894)
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 :/

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5774/...47308eea_c.jpg

Steely Dan Dec 30, 2015 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7283774)
^Pretty good estimate. This drawing from the bid set shows 50 floors at a total height of 699' to parapet :/

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5774/...47308eea_c.jpg



thanks for the update. :tup:

BVictor1 Dec 30, 2015 7:00 PM

Booo...

HomrQT Dec 30, 2015 7:28 PM

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

ardecila 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 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! :D

SamInTheLoop 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 Jan 7, 2016 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7291261)
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 Jan 8, 2016 2:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7291282)
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 Jan 8, 2016 4:17 AM

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

SamInTheLoop 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 Jan 8, 2016 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 7292423)
didnt CNA commit to a good chunk of this thing?

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

HomrQT Jan 9, 2016 1:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7284892)
^ 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 Jan 9, 2016 5:50 AM

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

ardecila Jan 9, 2016 8:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7293101)
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 Jan 9, 2016 4:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker (Post 7293319)
Looking closely at the diagram side profile it looks like the fun angles are still there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7293374)
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!

r18tdi Jan 9, 2016 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7291261)
... 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 Jan 9, 2016 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 7293672)
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 Jan 11, 2016 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7293563)
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.

http://i68.tinypic.com/zxtvrq.jpg

HomrQT Jan 12, 2016 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7295507)
I actually went to check the same drawing set as skyguy_7. I guess it just didn't display correctly when he screencapped.

http://i68.tinypic.com/zxtvrq.jpg

MUCH better.

:cheers:

Skyguy_7 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.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-i...-no/CHI348.jpg

scalziand Jan 12, 2016 6:36 PM

It's incredible how subtle the effect actually is.

The Lurker Jan 13, 2016 7:14 AM

This effect should be striking on partly cloudy days

SamInTheLoop Feb 1, 2016 3:59 PM

Could this one land Sidley?
 
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 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 Jun 6, 2016 12:32 PM

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.