SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | BMO Tower | 727 FT | 50 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224752)

HomrQT Nov 8, 2019 3:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B (Post 8742089)
That other tower design came with a different developer. Specifically it was designed for Sterling Bay. Sterling Bay was not selected as the master developer. I'm actually not sure how this proposal relates to what SB actually submitted as this was publicly released in September 2016, several months before the actual proposals were due. But more importantly, this was not a design competition, this was about making money for Amtrak. Clearly for one reason or another Riverside had the better proposal.

Also, even if Sterling Bay had been chosen, I doubt this concept would have made it fully to fruition. The footprint of this building would have been way bigger than what ended up being feasible. It was originally assumed that the bus station could be rearranged or that the air rights could be developed. Neither of these proved possible or acceptable for CDOT. And the park that fills over 50% of the rest of the site was Alderman required.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ned.B Nov 8, 2019 2:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8742543)
We don't know that the bus station will never get developed - but it was paid for with Federal money, and the Feds don't take too kindly when you tear down brand new facilities just a few years after they open. They might ask for their money back, as they did for the 63rd St branch of the Green Line in 1997 when the city decided to tear that down*.

As Mr. D speculated awhile back, the bus terminal site is plenty of space for a second tower that could include an enclosed bus terminal in its base. Maybe in the next development cycle, or the one after that, once the terminal has passed the 12 or 15 year mark. It's probably good to let this area grow over time, instead of putting up as many blue-glass towers as possible, all at once...

You are exactly right on why the bus station could not be modified so soon after construction. The current PD only leaves less than 500,000 sf allotted for the bus station sub area, which if the bus station ever does get redeveloped in the future, that would result in only a modest tower, or there would need to be a new or modified PD.

SolarWind Nov 11, 2019 6:16 AM

November 5, 2019













November 8, 2019






lu9 Nov 11, 2019 2:14 PM

The OPO from that angle :yes:

kolchak Nov 12, 2019 2:54 AM

Excavators working today -

https://i.imgur.com/CV93qKl.jpg

harryc Nov 24, 2019 4:10 PM

Nov 8



reduce re-use ReCycle - concrete crusher


Nov 22




Steely Dan Nov 26, 2019 11:21 PM

^ so the old garage is now completely down.

what are the odds for caisson rigs showing up before Xmas?

has anyone been talking to a little birdy lately?

Hourstrooper Nov 26, 2019 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8759998)
^ so the old garage is now completely down.

what are the odds for caisson rigs showing up before Xmas?

has anyone been talking to a little birdy lately?

From the camera it looks like one already has rolled on site. its red

Steely Dan Nov 27, 2019 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper (Post 8760023)
From the camera it looks like one already has rolled on site. its red

what camera?

link?

Bonsai Tree Nov 27, 2019 5:33 PM

Here's the webcam:

https://app.oxblue.com/open/clarkcon...erconstruction

Steely Dan Nov 27, 2019 5:38 PM

^ thanks for the link. :tup:

i'm not seeing any caisson rigs on site.

it still looks like the Heneghan Wrecking show at the moment.

KWillChicago Nov 27, 2019 8:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8760639)

Just realized that a great view ofvthe circle construction as well, until the tower blocks it.

r18tdi Nov 27, 2019 8:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWillChicago (Post 8760812)
Just realized that a great view ofvthe circle construction as well, until the tower blocks it.

At this rate, the tower will finish first.

SolarWind Nov 30, 2019 2:46 PM

November 27, 2019








spyguy Dec 1, 2019 8:47 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/jjnNcskJ/320-South.png
Source

KWillChicago Dec 2, 2019 10:18 AM

Spyguy always comes through for an early Christmas present. I think it looks sharp, figuratively and literally.

RedCorsair87 Dec 2, 2019 2:37 PM

If Goettsch is involved, we don't need to worry about the glass.

Side note: I cannot get over how gorgeous that white terracotta building is just west of this site.

HomrQT Dec 2, 2019 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCorsair87 (Post 8764310)
Side note: I cannot get over how gorgeous that white terracotta building is just west of this site.

Ha, it keeps drawing my eye as well. Beautiful.

RedCorsair87 Dec 2, 2019 4:28 PM

You're probably aware that some forum members dislike the recent string of blue glass towers all looking similar?

Can you imagine architecture enthusiasts 100 years ago complaining about every midrise/skyscraper built with either limestone and terracotta?

Steely Dan Dec 3, 2019 2:48 PM

off topic posts moved to the general discussions thread

please continue the discussion there: https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...d.php?t=208431

The Lurker Dec 3, 2019 4:30 PM

Wait...when did this get a height bump. It's only 12 feet but I don't remember hearing about it or seeing any diagrams yet.

Edit: thank you, Steely

Steely Dan Dec 3, 2019 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker (Post 8765414)
Wait...when did this get a height bump. It's only 12 feet but I don't remember hearing about it or seeing any diagrams yet.

i was perusing some stuff over at the CTBUH's skyscrapercenter website and saw that they had this one listed at 727'.

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.

Zapatan Dec 3, 2019 5:08 PM

That mockup looks awesome, this'll be a good tower

MorganChi Dec 5, 2019 12:05 AM

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...s7u-story.html

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 12:44 AM

^ 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

chicubs111 Dec 5, 2019 12:49 AM

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.

aaron38 Dec 5, 2019 2:34 AM

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.

bhawk66 Dec 5, 2019 3:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8767076)
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.

So when you say a lot of cities you mean NY, LA, Philadelphia, Houston Atlanta, Seattle, Cleveland and Dallas, right? Haha. j/k :cheers:

BVictor1 Dec 5, 2019 3:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorganChi (Post 8767033)

^^^You see... This is the type of announcement I need for 1000M. Not what the developer says.

Quote:

Work is set to begin this month on a 1.5 million-square-foot office tower alongside Union Station, after the developers landed a $476 million construction loan

Kumdogmillionaire Dec 5, 2019 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 8767138)
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.

This is 100% the answer. Form follows function here thanks to Sears and Hancock being the King and Queen

chicubs111 Dec 5, 2019 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8767174)
So when you say a lot of cities you mean NY, LA, Philadelphia, Houston Atlanta, Seattle, Cleveland and Dallas, right? Haha. j/k :cheers:

forgot Charlotte and OKC ;)

BVictor1 Dec 5, 2019 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 8767061)
^ 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

Perhaps that $900 million figure included the rehab to the headhouse and building out the space and adding the one floor for the hotel.

Steely Dan Dec 5, 2019 5:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8767076)
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.

it's important to remember that there are only 7 office towers in the US (outside of NYC) that have occupied space above 900'.

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.

i_am_hydrogen Dec 5, 2019 5:37 PM

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

chicubs111 Dec 5, 2019 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8767658)
it's important to remember that there are only 7 office towers in the US (outside of NYC) that have occupied space above 900'.

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.

A few roof-top embellishments here and there wouldn't hurt..just saying..lol..

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 8767449)
Perhaps that $900 million figure included the rehab to the headhouse and building out the space and adding the one floor for the hotel.


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.

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen (Post 8767672)
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


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.

bhawk66 Dec 6, 2019 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8767424)
forgot Charlotte and OKC ;)

Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte is 871' and Devon Energy Center in OKC is 844' (Wiki)

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'.

bhawk66 Dec 6, 2019 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8767658)
it's important to remember that there are only 7 office towers in the US (outside of NYC) that have occupied space above 900'.

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.

This is a really nice post Steely :tup:

Apey Dec 6, 2019 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8760639)

Really cool to see in live time, how the site is progressing! ;)

KWillChicago Dec 11, 2019 3:32 AM

Site looks pretty cleared out. Drills any day now I would presume?

rivernorthlurker Dec 11, 2019 5:05 PM

Hmm, what's going on at Van Buren and Canal this morning? Anyone?

https://app.oxblue.com/open/clarkcon...erconstruction

https://i.imgur.com/Qrmzsvv.png

Steely Dan Dec 11, 2019 5:09 PM

^ looks like it might be soil testing.

with a former parking garage sitting on the piece of land, they might have a fair bit of soil testing to do before the caisson rigs start drilling.

rivernorthlurker Dec 11, 2019 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8772795)
^ looks like it might be soil testing.

with a former parking garage sitting on the piece of land, they might have a fair bit of soil testing to do before the caisson rigs start drilling.

Ah good point. Hard to do testing under a parking garage. Was hoping they'd roll right into drilling. Hopefully they just take a quick dip, lol. :haha:

rlw777 Dec 11, 2019 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker (Post 8772788)
Hmm, what's going on at Van Buren and Canal this morning? Anyone?

https://app.oxblue.com/open/clarkcon...erconstruction

We don't have to guess there is a second construction cam for this project that is much closer to the action at the same link.

rivernorthlurker Dec 11, 2019 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 8772829)
We don't have to guess there is a second construction cam for this project that is much closer to the action at the same link.

Feel like such a doofus. Thanks! I think that's newish... Plus OPO rooftop construction too. And Tokoyo Inn! :tup: https://app.oxblue.com/open/clarkcon...erconstruction

https://i.imgur.com/FLFtZwZ.png

r18tdi Dec 16, 2019 5:01 PM

Just checked the webcam... banana time??

Steely Dan Dec 16, 2019 5:14 PM

^ the new piece of equipment looks like it might be a pile-driver.

perhaps for site perimeter piling?

harryc Dec 16, 2019 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8777292)
^ the new piece of equipment looks like it might be a pile-driver.

perhaps for site perimeter piling?

The same vertical rigs are used by other contractors for caisson work, haven't seen RevCon use one for caissons yet, but generally the caissons are sunk, the piers installed, and the caissons removed before the sheet pile starts.

Steely Dan Dec 16, 2019 6:23 PM

^ i was thinking that it might be for some kind of pile driving because i didn't see any drill bits, caisson sleeves, or rebar cage assembly on site, but there are a couple of long wide flanges laying nearby, so........


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.