Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
it was a painfully boring time for skyscraper construction fans in chicago (and most other US cities). |
Quote:
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..... |
Yeah, went to plan commission and I asked around...
130 N. Franklin passed. |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
^ 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........
|
They changed the song in the video.
It's now dull and generic. :hell: |
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/ |
Quote:
losing 3 floors would equal roughly 42', bringing this one down to the 710' range. |
^ 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).....
|
Quote:
|
^ I've learned through experience not to think that.........
|
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 |
^Daaamn! I just soiled myself.
|
No Kidding, this building is a fucking Masterpiece.
|
Really hope they don't mess up the glass. I really like the design.
|
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.
|
Is there a start date for this beauty?
|
^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?
|
^ 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).......... |
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:
|
Quote:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5774/...47308eea_c.jpg |
Quote:
thanks for the update. :tup: |
Booo...
|
This thing went from a rockstar to just so-so. Happens far too often here.
|
^ 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 agree, the height reduction is hardly noticeable. We always knew the building would be around 700, now build! :D
|
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! |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
It'll be interesting to see if Tyshman can get this off the ground in this cycle.
|
^ 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!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Looking closely at the diagram side profile it looks like the fun angles are still there.
|
Quote:
You need light reflecting off the glass to notice the facets really. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://i68.tinypic.com/zxtvrq.jpg |
Quote:
:cheers: |
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 |
It's incredible how subtle the effect actually is.
|
This effect should be striking on partly cloudy days
|
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.......
|
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...rriving-at-130
This one looks to be finally getting started one of my favorite designs of this cycle. |
Hallelujah, What great news to start our week! Calling all bananas.....
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.