The density of this area, existing and proposed, does not come anywhere close to taxing the 'infrastructure'... by which I assume you mean traffic congestion concerns...

The fact that all of the properties you mention are serviced my multiple roadways, some of which are stacked, and the fact that the WP properties are serviced by a non-thru street (which is an advantage), means that I think it would be close to impossible to over tax the surrounding 'infrastructure' with even the most extreme office density of WPS...

Thanks Pilsenarch. Appreciate your insight to the density question.

Wow, it seems like every time I go out of town for a week, there's a news bombshell. I need to leave town more often :)

My thoughts/questions on this crazy torrent of news:

1. If Salesforce is taking a huge bite out of the marketable office space in this tower, would the developers then consider adding more space? (and thus, potentially breaching the 1000 ft mark, if not higher than that?)

2. I would be fine with a "video board" if it was something along the lines of the Salesforce tower in SF, but not so much if it was akin to a giant LED screen that many skyscrapers in cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai have.

3. The $10 million in tax incentives is clearly a negotiable entry bid, and expected to come down as the city counter bids. I'd imagine they would get somewhere along the lines of half of that.

4. Will the 5,000 employee headcount consist of brand hires/positions, or does that number include the 1,000 people they already employ in the city?

Very exciting news! Between this, as well as Google and Facebook greatly expanding their headcounts here, I wonder if Amazon is itching to get in while the getting is still good? :)

I don't think so. Developers don't usually move the goalposts like that in a significant way.

Plus - this tower is relatively slender and any significant increase in height will require more elevators that will eat into the leasable area on every floor. The footprint of this building is constrained by narrow easements to Apparel Center (or whatever its called now) so the floorplates can't really get any bigger, and the narrower the floorplates become, the less desirable they are generally.

That being said, Salesforce seems to regard this tower as a huge status symbol for them, so they may ask for decorative elements that raise the height beyond 1000'... but I wouldn't expect any more floors.

I think we might eek out 1000' because of the ego thing and a big ass video board crown. Bring it.

More floors would be great, but I would totally be fine with a spire or a decorative crown element that would cross the 1,000 ft mark :)

This seems to be Salesforce's MO: in SF and Indy, they've gone for the most prominent towers in the city, generally modernist glass & steel, with signage, etc. to announce it as the "SalesForce Tower".

That's very different than google's funky adaptive re-use like Fulton Market and their NYC's chelsea market buildings, or apple's gee-whiz design-heavy spaceship campus and apple stores.

If SF does have a specific "type" of building they like, than WPS is definitely right up their alley.

As for the project itself, I don't mind the $10mil in incentives. For 5k jobs, that's ~$2k per job, which will easily be recouped in the first year of income taxes alone, not to mention property and sales taxes. For comparison, Chicago and IL are reportedly offering >$1bil in incentives for Amazon's 50k jobs (spread over 10 years of hiring), which is 10x worse than what SF is asking for. And it's nowhere near such atrocities as Wisconsin offering $4bil for 13,000 factory jobs at Foxconn. For an apples-to-apples comparison, Indianapolis gave SF $17mil in incentives for 800 new jobs.

Of course, the city needs that money more than the company, and I'm no fan of incentives in general, but that's the way the game is played these days and Chicago is getting a pretty good deal for $10mil.

And I don't mind the park closures. Assuming they're asking for a few days a month, or maybe a couple weeks a year, and the city ensures that there's advanced notice, and maybe some coordination with other events planned along the riverwalk, I don't think it'd be a big deal.

What I'm still undecided on is the video wall. On the one hand, Times Square and futuristic places like Tokyo and Shanghai are cool, and it would definitely be fun to recreate something like that in Chicago. But is the river the best place to do so? We already have a fantastic urban canyon with awe-inspiring architecture that speaks for itself and is unique to this city. It's elegant and a great blend of nature and man-made marvels. A video wall changes that, even if it's done in a tasteful way.

If this was proposed for a part of the Loop, I'd have no problem with it. Combine it with the lights under the el tracks that have been proposed, and let's create our very own Times Square / Shibuya Crossing / Blade Runner district. But the river is something different... I haven't decided if the video wall is a net plus or negative there (OTOH, 5k jobs is nothing to sneeze at so maybe hoity-toity discussions about architecture should take a backseat to getting jobs into a city that desperately needs them...)

It seems like some of us are forgetting that this thing called "Art on theMART" goes live in a month, which will project things/animations on the side of Merchandise Mart that faces the river. That is a 2.5 acre face that will now be projection animated next to the river at a much more human height/elevation.

Yeah, I don't think a crown that's lit up 800+ feet up almost next door is going to get the attention nor are people going to really notice too much when they're along the river.

Exactly, you won’t notice it unless you’re looking at the skyline from a distance, in which case it’ll only enhance he viewing.

It would be kinda funny if this thing gets height bummed to be taller than Salesforce Tower in San Francisco

This is pretty much my feeling on the matter as well. I don't think there will be an increase in square footage as it doesn't serve the developer's purpose. I think the office tower has about 1.2 million sqft of office space as it is. That said if Salesforce wants a signature tower, which the current design certainly is not (IMO), we may see a design change incorporating a crown element on top of the tower which pushes it to 1000'+.

That isn't corporate advertising

food for thought:

the video screen/crown dealie on top of salesforce's HQ tower in SF appears to be about 150' tall. the building's total height is 1,070'.

add 150' to WPS's listed 950' height figure and you get 1,100'.


http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=82396859


but even if it doesn't end up besting the HQ tower in SF, if this salesforce deal for WPS goes through, then chicago will at least still have bragging rights over Indy's salesforce tower. ;)

Oooh good research

Based on what I've seen for Salesforce and their "video board" in San Francisco, neither is theirs. Maybe do research before stating things first? I mean, I agree if it's corporate advertising then hell no but if it's something like below then...yes.

• Video Link

With all due respect, I don't need to be told about research. The top of the SF tower is not something to consider comparable to a video board, but an artistic light installation. And though we cannot say for certain what might appear on an actual riverfront video board, the entire point will be to promote the brand - i.e, it is advertising

The top of the tower in SF as far as I know is referred to as a "video board" from what I've seen.

until we get more information on the exact nature, design, extent, etc. of this alleged "video board", i think it's pretty foolish for anyone to be making any hard and fast opinion statements about it.

when a journalist uses a phrase like "video board, it could mean just about anything. journalists are notorious for not having the first clue about the minutiae of these kinds of building design terms.

if it's a "video board" crown like the one atop their HQ tower in san francisco, groovy.

if it's a "video board" like those giant electronic billboards along the kennedy, booooo.

^ Agree. Journalists get a lot wrong. We should wait. And I agree - if it's something 1000 feet up and it's not really advertising then cool. If it's advertising ESPECIALLY below say 20 floors (and above it - i'm just saying especially) then hell to the no.

Wow, if what is intended is similar to the SF thing, I'm on board.