Quote:
as the 715' figure we originally had listed was a super-preliminary rough height estimate, i'm assuming that someone over at the CTBUH has seen something a little more specific/detailed height-wise. |
That mockup looks awesome, this'll be a good tower
|
|
^ Great, unsurprising news.
I would assume this might be a ~$650-700 mil tower or so..... I found a Trib article, linked-to below, from last year where Rahm (of all people) reportedly stated it to be a $900 mil project. That figure seems substantially too high. https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...210-story.html |
for 1.5 million square ft I though this building would be taller myself...alot of cites have there tallest office building cracking 900ft with this amount of square footage...i guess Chicago just prefers there thicker bigger floor plans in office towers as opposed to height.
|
In a city where 900 ft would be a new tallest, a builder may go the trophy route. But at that location in Chicago, with Sears right there, it’s hard to be noticed. Better to be economical than flashy.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. sears tower - chicago 2. aon center - chicago 3. US bank tower - LA 4. chase tower - houston 5. wells fargo - houston 6. salesforce - san francisco 7. columbia center - seattle that's it outside of NYC. every other office tower in the nation that stretches above 900' uses spires or other rooftop embellishments to get there. my point? 900+ vertical feet of occupied office levels is extremely rare in this country. back in the late '80s boom, we saw 3 big office towers go up in chicago that ranged from 961' - 1,007' (franklin center, 2 pru, 311 S wacker), but all of them achieved their great height with spires and other roof top ornamentation. all 3 of them have occupied heights of just 820' - 843'. these days in chicago, developers are not too keen on spending money on those kinds of height-boosting roof-top embellishments for bragging rights, so we end up with flat-roofed stuff like river point, 150 N riverside, 110 N wacker, BMO, and salesforce which really aren't a great deal lower than those late '80s office towers from an occupied height perspective. in the entire history of chicago, only sears and aon truly stand out from the crowd of office towers for their incredible heights of occupied office space. office towers above ~850' just don't seem to pencil out in chicago, unless you stick a big giant pole on top of it. |
BMO Harris Bank parent to cut 5% of workforce in cost-savings move, potentially affecting hundreds of Chicago-area employees
https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...lyq-story.html |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Could be indeed. That article specified the office tower, however possibly by mistake. $900 mil seems about plausible for both. Really looking forward to the remainder of the Union Station restoration and hotel renovation/expansion - what a great project. |
Quote:
IIRC, in another article on the cuts, around 400 Chicago jobs were referenced. I read this as little more than a routine, relatively run-of-the-mill corporate consolidation. |
Quote:
There will be a new member of the 900 footers when 99 Hudson Street in Jersey City wraps up next year. The club must have been on it's radar as it clocks in at exactly 900'. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Site looks pretty cleared out. Drills any day now I would presume?
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.