a 1000+ footer here and a 1300+ thompson center redevelopment would do wonders in filling out the skyline. Seems like two of the last lots with the potential to balance out sears in the loop and connect it with the northern supertalls of the skyline... at least before parking garages start getting torn down.
|
Quote:
|
I think this block has now been vacant longer than Block 37. :(
|
^ holy crap, you're right!
Demo on the old merc exchange wrapped up in spring 2003, so we're coming up on 19 years now. Block 37 demo wrapped up in 1990, and the first building didn't open until 2008, so 18 years. |
Isn't this one of the sites that JP Morgan Chase is considering building on?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I seem to recall the demolition was being rushed because the owners did not want Landmarks to give the building legal protection as it was rated orange at the time. It seemed insane to me that the old CME didn't have landmark status to begin with. There was definitely some backroom dealings going on with that. And now instead of a gorgeous historic building where modern day derivative trading was arguably conceived in, we all get to cherish in the barren abandoned lot we have inherited as a result of these idiotic actions. :hell: |
^ i believe that both the CME and the concept of derivatives trading preceded the 1928 opening of the building in question, but yeah, it's still kind of a bitter irony that this beautiful building was lost because someone made a bad bet on the future.
https://www.emporis.com/images/show/...ast-corner.jpg Source: https://www.emporis.com/buildings/11...chicago-il-usa |
Quote:
Edit: Did a bit of searching and Tribune says Tishman is one 'making pitches' to Chase but not really sure the source or context on that. https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...m6y-story.html Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If Chase ends up choosing this lot, lets hope that the proposed building will end up being higher than 751 ft as initially proposed.
Do we know what the maximum height and density that would be allowed on this parcel is? I assume this is zoned DC-16/downtown core and has a pretty high FAR/height limits on it. |
130 N. Franklin is PD1293
The documents show base zoning of DC-16 would allow them a 1,046,112 sq. ft building. They have some bonuses that allow a FAR of 20.502 which allows 1,340,463 sq. ft. As for height, I thought anything over 500ft has to be approved by the City, so I do not think there is an specific height limit. |
^^ Does that include lobby or mechanical too?
Salesforce Tower in SF is 1.4 MSF and One Vanderbilt in NYC is 1.75 MSF 1.34 could yield a ~1k foot office tower these days |
^ or FAR more likely in Chicago's case, it could end up being a 50 story, 727' building like the new BMO Tower, which has ~1.5M SF.
It's important to remember that Chicago hasn't built an office tower with a roof height north of 1,000' since 1974. |
^^The developers can also purchase more FAR if they want or need. That's how the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund coffers get filled.
|
Regardless of height, if they keep the kreuck+sexton design this would be my personal favorite of office buildings built in the past 10 years.
|
Quote:
I think 1.5 MSF would normally be a lot taller than that. Quote:
|
Not to be a Debbie Downer, Zap, but I think those days are over. There is just no need for office buildings of that height anymore. NY is an outlier. Times have changed. The work place has changed. Doubt we'll ever see another office building over 1000' in Chicago in our lifetime.
|
Quote:
There is a limit where buildings stop being economical after a certain height, but I think it's around the 1000 range. Maybe Chase will go for a mixed use building? |
Quote:
1. Salesforce Tower --- 2023 - 850' - 1.6M SF 2. 110 N Wacker ------ 2020 - 817' - 1.5m SF 3. 300 N LaSalle ------ 2008 - 785' - 1.3M SF 4. BCBS Tower -------- 2010 - 744' - 1.6M SF 5. River Point --------- 2017 - 732' - 1.0M SF 6. BMO Tower --------- 2021 - 727' - 1.5M SF 7. 150 N Riverside ---- 2017 - 724' - 1.2M SF 8. 111 S Wacker ------ 2005 - 681' - 1.5M SF 9. 71 S Wacker ------- 2005 - 679' - 1.8M SF 10. UBS Tower ------- 2001 - 652' - 1.4M SF 11. 155 N Wacker ---- 2009 - 638' - 1.2M SF 12. 353 N Clark ------ 2009 - 623' - 1.2M SF 13. Citadel Center --- 2003 - 580' - 1.5M SF 14. One S Dearborn - 2005 - 571 - 0.8M SF 15. CNA Center ------ 2018 - 517' - 0.8M SF 16. 191 N Wacker --- 2002 - 516' - 0.7M SF 17. 540 W Madison -- 2003 - 453' - 1.1M SF source: SF figures are approximate and are pulled from a variety of online sources. height figures are CTBUH. all of the above are 21st century variations on the "form follows finance" theme. chicago office tower developers do not spend more than they have to to get a solid ROI. Quote:
the occupied heights for those two towers are only 876' and 901', respectively. chicago office tower developers have not been keen on paying for those kinds of non-returning height-increasing rooftop extravagances for roughly 3 decades now. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Merch Mart is colossal at 4 msf but only ~325' tall.
Old Post office is another great example. Obviously something on this site would have to be taller but you get my point. OPO is ~2.5 msf and 95% leased already. Combine that with the towers on the river also performing well and all the stuff in Fulton Market and you have well over 10 msf absorbed in 5 years. There is clearly a case for another 2+ msf building in Chicago but no guarantee it would be a supertall or even close. |
I never realize 71 South wacker is 1.8 million sq ft...thats huge...Yea chicago is def super conservative on height relative to sq footage...if this was NY you basically add 200 ft to all those heights for that size space relative.
|
Quote:
Quote:
No building outside NYC or Chicago has an occupied floor past 300 meters, only the tallest buildings of LA and Houston get extremely close. I'd still consider Salesfroce a legit 1k footer and the two Philly towers have a roof just under 1k (974' and 996' respectively) Just saying that an office building like Salesforce or Comcast wouldn't be totally out of the question if the stars aligned right. If it can happen in those cities it can happen in Chicago. Chase's new headquarters in NYC show us they like to ball out lol Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And that also helps explain why a Salesforce SF or Comcast Philly outcome is unlikely here. Those examples were both companies sparing no expense to build big giant fancy and expensive HQ edifices to themselves in their hometowns. Chicago has nowhere near that level of meaning and symbolism to Chase. They're just trying to keep up with the local Jones's (BofA & BMO). Quote:
|
Quote:
They are also not the same size and do not line up perfectly, as 123 N Wacker is narrower than 101 N Wacker. Although I suppose that shouldn't be too much of a problem, as any future development could use that extra space on the north parcel as an access drive/alley connection to Randolph. |
Is Trump Tower not an office building? I live in Philly so I kinda just always assumed it was an office building
|
Quote:
Both the the original and most recent proposals had the tower straddling both parcels, with a de-mapped Court Pl., and a plaza at the north end of the site. Original: http://imageshack.com/a/img913/7237/FsJmXc.jpg Most Recent: https://i.postimg.cc/50PC6jKT/4998f3...5357-s-4-2.jpg Quote:
|
Quote:
I thought Chicago is the Chase Bank HQ while NY is JP Morgan Chase HQ, I could be wrong, it could just be the midwest regional |
^ Chase Bank has its U.S./Canada commercial and retail banking headquarters located here in Chicago.
But the real show is run out of NYC, as it always has been. |
Quote:
Got it, thanks Steely! |
I wonder if Chase cares about topping their existing 850 foot tower in Chicago, that would be nice.
I guess that rumor of a 98 story building either had nothing to do with Chase or was just a bunch of BS. Quote:
At the end of the day it would be really nice to see this lot filled, I liked the original design for this tower, even if only 750'. The newer one is super bland and lame. Value engineering makes sense from a financial perspective but let's not lose our minds. |
Quote:
|
Building is from the late 60s but i would take it over any of the others in a heart beat. Not sure "keeping up" is valid in my book. They already have the prize, maybe a major rehab and redo the plaza instead.
|
^ yeah, I can't think of a major Chicago office tower built in the last 40 years that I would take over Chase Tower. It's sublime.
https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/...-w-cahill4.jpg Source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...hase-tower/779 |
^^^ Your photo captures Chase's elegant south face which (like the north) is indeed great. Unfortunately the slimmer west and east faces are plug-ugly and very visible from many angles. :(
|
^ the elevator cores on the east and west facades are fine. Form folllows function. It's an absolutely stellar building, IMO.
https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/...viewup2_aw.jpg |
Who doesn't like the Atari building?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Highrises rely on redundant and heavily armored/smokeproofed stairwells to ensure that everybody can escape in the event of a fire. They also rely on sprinkler systems to ensure that a small fire does not turn into a large one that threatens lives. Because of these things, highrise fires are very rare so the system works well. There may be other reasons that the executives are on the 16th floor - since the tower tapers, the executives might need to be on that floor to get the space they require on a larger floorplate. Non-tapering towers don't have this problem, because most floorplates are basically the same size all the way up. I could also see a situation where an Assembly occupancy (auditorium, conference center, etc) would be limited to lower floors, since these often require more than two stairwells based on the sheer volume of people and a ladder evac might be required to supplement the stairs. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
as far as the criticism above, much of that could be applied to Aqua as well... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/ch0024.jpg Source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...hase-tower/779 But you seem pretty hung up on it, so probably time for us to to agree to disagree. If you can think of a better major office tower built in Chicago post-1980, I'm all ears. Fun fact found in looking deeper into this building: it was the 6th tallest skyscraper on the entire freaking planet back when it was built in 1969! |
i've always loved the Chase, especially since it still really stood out back in the 70s when we would visit Chicago. it's bold and timeless.
in fact, when the Index was built in Dubai, it immediately made me think of the Chase, which is probably why i like it, as well. https://www.emporis.com/images/show/...-undefined.jpg source |
Quote:
|
Quote:
(a little OT but there's been no real news for this building lately so I think it's fine lol) Also holy crap Marina City Towers are turning 60! https://i.imgur.com/uwqsszE.png |
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.