Also imagine posting these photos on the forum circa 2014. We've been spoiled...

July 15





July 19





July 22

^ Wow, you can really see the effect of the wildfire smoke in the lighting in those shots from the 19th.

A very humid morning in Chicago - this is the part of the city where the Lake/Land divide causes condensation, fog, and in colder month's snow. Not to say we haven't has some pretty good sunrise and sunsets, and a blood red moon last night.

It was wildfire smoke. See for example this news video: Wildfire smoke casts haze over Chicago skies, impacting air quality.

Yep - was out in the far western suburbs Saturday and you could actually smell it at times with the winds. I lived out in AZ & CA for 2 decades and got used to the hazy skies and orange moons. Seeing it in Chicago is a just reminder of how bad the fires have become. The storms did help clean the air a bit yesterday.

Northside
 

I know there's been talk about this before, and correct me if I'm wrong but the general consensus is that there will be no continuous riverwalk developed on the north side of the river because IIRC the Army Core of Engineers will likely not allow a further narrowing of the river? I feel like if that is indeed the case, they allowed it to be narrowed for the south bank, why then not the north? Seems like they have changed their minds before. The riverwalk is a resounding success, and the additions by these three buildings at the confluence seems like such a waste if they weren't tied into a larger effort. Im not picturing restaurants under the Merch Mart, maybe that section is more of a greened up promenade, but tying in Wolf Point to some of the restaurants, like RPM, to the east seems like a no brainer, heck even keep it going and link up with trumps river frontage space and you might even get some tenants in there (a decade later is better than never at all). I dunno, just dreaming here, but it doesnt seem all that unreasonable and quite frankly necessary. Thoughts?

The river walk didn’t actually narrow the navigable river by much. The bridge houses on the South Bank were the real navigation impediment, and most of the riverwalk just filled in the space between.

On the North bank, the city could probably negotiate a riverwalk extension up to where the protective bridge pylons are, but some of the buildings have water intakes in the vicinity.

It’s technically more difficult with lower financial returns than the South Bank on top of being a regulatory headache.

The South+East Bank is public property, the North+West bank is not. 321 N Clark went ahead and cut a popular and heavy trafficked section of walk - to add more dining. This was pre-pandemic.

If extending the Riverwalk on the North side of the main branch is as hard as galleyfox thinks, here are my thoughts:

Trump Tower could tie in to the River Esplanda if the city just makes a connection around Michigan and the Wrigley building.

And Wolf Point could extend their river walk along the North Branch eliminating the parking they have near the old sun times building loading docks and either get the city to install a decent cross walk across Kinzie or squeeze a riverwalk under it. There's going to be a lot of development up the North Branch and they could easily benefit if they were a terminus of sorts. This would also be a great opportunity to better highlight the landmark that is the the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Bridge.

All that said, I don't doubt an extension along the North side of the main branch will eventually happen even if it takes another 20 years to be economically viable.

I haven't been over there since RPM opened, but the public easement connecting Clark and Dearborn is still there, it's just much narrower and passes right through the middle of the restaurant's outdoor dining area. If they have completely cut the public from passing through they are in violation of the ordinance that allowed that retail expansion.

The North side doesn't need a river level walkway, they should just turn lower Carroll into a "Low Line" with passageways under the streets connecting to the already extant sections of riverfront terraces. That plus signaled crosswalks at street level would tie things together nicely.

Thanks for posting these - not sure I'd seen these 2 previously.
Definitely have now found a bone to pick with it. That signage.
I'm definitely a purist when it comes to signage on the skyline - to me, it's a form of pollution. Fully realize I take a hard stance and am likely in a distinct minority, but I detest anything other than smallish tasteful logos (even there I don't like them). I just don't want words up there - I enjoy 'reading' skylines just not literally. If there was a super strict ordinance against this stuff, it would have absolutely zero impact on business investment and development downtown. Precisely no company would decide to (even as a nudge factor among others) locate in city x vs y because they can put a sign on the top of their building in y. Or locate in a suburban campus because they can litter their buildings with all types of signs in that environment. It defies logic to think otherwise.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...qhe-story.html

Kirkland & Ellis is in talks for a lease of 600,000 square feet or more in the 60-story Salesforce Tower ...
Combined with a 500,000-square-foot lease by the namesake tenant, the San Francisco-based business software giant, the law firm’s deal would bring the 1.2 million-square-foot skyscraper close to fully leased...
Kirkland now leases just over 600,000 square feet on LaSalle Street, according to CoStar Group....
Earlier this year, Salesforce reiterated its plans for all of the 500,000 square feet it plans to occupy in the new Chicago skyscraper despite telling employees they could continue working remotely after the pandemic.

Is it possible Kirkland is taking some of Salesforce's space?

In their offices, they typically include trophy space for a conference center (e.g. two floors with 360-degree views in Manhattan). In 300 N Lasalle, they have a double-height floor on 6 and then a second floor on 7. Given that Salesforce already has both the very top and bottom floors, is there any space in the building for them to do something like that?

I routinely walk through there. You're allowed to use either the top or bottom floor terrace. I've never had any trouble, though it's definitely weird.

This blog post talks about the easement and confirms it still exists: https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...ts-in-chicago/

Kinda surprising considering 300 north lasalle is not really that old of a building... kinda suck this third wolf point tower didnt go for the extra height as orignally planned because with these two leased they could of easily have a 1000ft office tower wtih 70% plus leased...who would of known tenants would want to be in arguably the most prime location in the city :uhh:

Kirkland's profits per partner have grown by more than a factor of two since then, from $3 up to $6 million. And their other branches have gotten new offices. The Chicago office is nominally the headquarters, so they want to get theirs. Given the income, I've always been surprised their offices aren't nicer -- if I had that money and spent all my time at my office, I'd want it to be pretty nice.

The other issue is that their space in 300 N Lasalle really isn't that efficient. That building is close to square, so it has lots of interior space relative to windows. But the size of the staff is considerably smaller now than even 12 years ago. They don't need nearly as many secretaries as they used to have. They've been shedding floors in 300 N Lasalle over the years, as they realized they needed less space -- they probably could lose at least one more floor there and save about $1.5 million per year.

A 1000 foot office building would be more expensive and probably have the same amount of leasable space as the 800 foot building we're getting because it would need more elevators. :shrug:

Yes, I speculated the same a few posts back. I imagine there is probably even a point where adding more floors to a building could theoretically reduce the overall amount of leaseable space if the size of the floor plates/footprint are not able to increase. (and I believe the base is constrained by the Apparel Center view corridor view rights)

The websites says 25,000 sqft for the floor plates. This is a 60 floor building. Does anyone have a resource with a list of commercial buildings with floorplate/height/footprint ratio? I'm curious what the distribution looks like. Or anything regarding building height to elevator ratio would be interesting - any links appreciated.

With over 1 million sq feet possible pre-leased i would think in retrospect wolf point developers considering this site would of went for something more substantial than what is proposed now.. whatever that height is that makes it worthwhile i dont know...maybe its 80 stories 1100ft for a signature tower that clocks in at 1.8 million sq ft vs the 1.2 its proposed to now.