SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 875 FT & 765 FT | ? & ? FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219306)

chris08876 Mar 24, 2017 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7722116)
Chicago has been looking forward to this site redefining our skyline for 12 years. Hopefully the wait is worth the payoff. As far as our place in the "tallest buildings in the world" department, we're getting edged out of even being in the top 15 since apparently post design antennas don't count for whatever bs reason.

Its time will come. I think its better to wait because the land will most likely be developed.

I think given the location, a mixed used would be great. It at least offers more to the city in terms of its functionality than a single tower catering as a fortress for the super rich. Given the lakefront views (literally like right by the lake), a hotel, and residential would make sense.

TimeAgain Mar 24, 2017 2:47 AM

I don't think anyone expects this to be a 2000 ft tall tower anymore (though I contend that the market could support it if they went with a mixed use design). Anything less than 1000, though, and they shouldn't even bother building it.

chris08876 Mar 24, 2017 2:53 AM

Ultimately, the market will decide its fate. I think we may see an 800-900 foot tower. Just a guess here. I can't see the city at the moment supporting a 2000 ft residential tower to a sector of the market willing to buy $15 million+ condos or apartments. Unless the developer is seriously confident or Chicago starts booming in the financial or tech sector. Something like One Grant Park could work. Which, wouldn't be bad if it had a high unit count. Possibly rentals. At least a 1 Grant Park style development is realistic. Once you factor in what it will take to make a tower profitable in this market, 1400+ ft starts to look like a pipedream.

HomrQT Mar 24, 2017 3:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7750130)
Ultimately, the market will decide its fate. I think we may see an 800-900 foot tower. Just a guess here. I can't see the city at the moment supporting a 2000 ft residential tower to a sector of the market willing to buy $15 million+ condos or apartments. Unless the developer is seriously confident or Chicago starts booming in the financial or tech sector. Something like One Grant Park could work. Which, wouldn't be bad if it had a high unit count. Possibly rentals. At least a 1 Grant Park style development is realistic. Once you factor in what it will take to make a tower profitable in this market, 1400+ ft starts to look like a pipedream.

Does the prominance of it being the tallest building in the Western hemisphere add to the selling point of the tower? Man I really want a 2000+ ft tall building here.

chris08876 Mar 24, 2017 11:46 AM

Maybe that Aramco IPO could be used for good tower investment. Could a mega tall in theory work thats residential. Sure! But it would require an investor who would rather wait for profit and fund the whole thing while it fills up. Similar to the Kingdom Tower, which will take a loss at first. Actually, I remember reading about how the developer expects a loss for the first couple of years until it fills up. More of the case where its a status symbol and profit can wait for a couple of years.

Unless they do it Miami style where they have pre-development sales 2 or 3 years prior until they reach a certain % of sales. A tower that is seen as an investment opportunity would greatly increase the chance of it happening. Unfortunately, it will probally go the way of One57 where it sits empty most of the time. Unless they can find a way to reduce construction costs but I think the cost of anything 500m+ will be the boon to this. But quality comes with costs plus the extra height requires good engineering. Just look at the concrete used in 432 Park. Might seem like a slender Virginia slim cigarette tower, but there quite some engineering in that tower. Expensive unfortunately.

Kinda why a mixed used with a hotel portion would make more sense. It would add more to the city rather than just being a pretty tall symbol.

KWILLSKYLINE Mar 24, 2017 1:21 PM

Let it sit for another ten years and see how the market goes. And then another ten years after that, if thats what it takes to get a 2000+. I'm probally the most impatient person in this forum of wanting to see sites developed. But this is too prime to let it slide for a 700'-900' ft, if we even get that. The building that can go here, if done right, wont just change the skyline but the impact of the entire city worldwide.

pilsenarch Mar 24, 2017 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 7750093)
^ .. I think your both the same person trolling....I mean what are odds you both only have 19 posts on this forum ...lol...:uhh:

HA! good catch...

Anyway, aren't the foundations covering almost all of the site... not only for the tower, but the underground parking?

I find it hard to believe that related would scrap the underground parking foundations and invest the $ by partially or completely demolishing them for a second tower... but, I could be wrong...

harryc Mar 24, 2017 3:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch (Post 7750440)
HA! good catch...

Anyway, aren't the foundations covering almost all of the site... not only for the tower, but the underground parking?

I find it hard to believe that related would scrap the underground parking foundations and invest the $ by partially or completely demolishing them for a second tower... but, I could be wrong...

There is a 70-80' deep wall around the entire site, a bunch of rock socketed caissons, and dozens of hardpan caissons.

I understand "sunk-costs" but I always hope that these will be viewed as big discounts on similar endeavors.

Reinsdorf Sucks Mar 24, 2017 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 7750093)
^ .. I think your both the same person trolling....I mean what are odds you both only have 19 posts on this forum ...lol...:uhh:

Hahaha you know I noticed that as well and was worried somebody would get suspicious.

I used to post a lot on skyscrapercity back in the day, then everybody migrated over here it seems.. and I just kinda stopped checking everything after the recession and end of the building boom.

Steely Dan Mar 24, 2017 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 7750093)
^ .. I think your both the same person trolling....I mean what are odds you both only have 19 posts on this forum ...lol...:uhh:

FrankLloydWrong joined the forum only 4 short months ago.

Reinsdorf Sucks joined nearly a decade ago (just hasn't posted very much).

IP addresses are nowhere close to a match.



If FrankLloydWrong really is a second account that Reinsdorf Sucks created just to troll you about 400 N LSD, then the man plays an EXTREMELY long game. :haha:

TimeAgain Mar 24, 2017 4:07 PM

Is there any market in the US that can support a 2000 ft tall tower today? I know NYC is the most likely, but their tallest proposal is 1500. China and the MidEast are building them with govt dollars.

10023 Mar 24, 2017 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimeAgain (Post 7750634)
Is there any market in the US that can support a 2000 ft tall tower today? I know NYC is the most likely, but their tallest proposal is 1500. China and the MidEast are building them with govt dollars.

Structural engineers on the forum are in a better position to answer this, but I'm not sure any market can support a 2,000 foot tower on the basis of sound economic logic. The US has mostly moved beyond the dick-measuring phase of urban development. Places like China, Dubai and Saudi want symbolism.

Kumdogmillionaire Mar 24, 2017 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimeAgain (Post 7750634)
Is there any market in the US that can support a 2000 ft tall tower today? I know NYC is the most likely, but their tallest proposal is 1500. China and the MidEast are building them with govt dollars.

There absolutely is the ability to build it in NYC or Chicago but the problem is that most companies are unwilling to build a 2000+ foot sky penis that will have less return on investment than a couple thousand footers or 4 middle tier skyscrapers.

Maybe pre-Recession this could have be viable, like with the Spire(though there is no way of knowing that would have been completed even without the crash), but after that situation I just don't see anyone risking everything on a single building that has a big chance of failing. I just don't see anything bigger than +1200 feet getting built there. It appears that has roughly become the cap of big buildings in Chicago this day an age, and for me that's not a bad thing. Not every city needs a cloud dong to be proud of their city.

BuildThemTaller Mar 24, 2017 8:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7750691)
There absolutely is the ability to build it in NYC or Chicago but the problem is that most companies are unwilling to build a 2000+ foot sky penis that will have less return on investment than a couple thousand footers or 4 middle tier skyscrapers.

Maybe pre-Recession this could have be viable, like with the Spire(though there is no way of knowing that would have been completed even without the crash), but after that situation I just don't see anyone risking everything on a single building that has a big chance of failing. I just don't see anything bigger than +1200 feet getting built there. It appears that has roughly become the cap of big buildings in Chicago this day an age, and for me that's not a bad thing. Not every city needs a cloud dong to be proud of their city.

Chicagoans, 1974-2005: Chicago has the tallest building in the world!
Chicagoans, 2017: We don't even need to talk about how tall our buildings are!

In all honesty, I hope this thread is locked until actual news appears.

Dale Mar 24, 2017 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7750691)
There absolutely is the ability to build it in NYC or Chicago but the problem is that most companies are unwilling to build a 2000+ foot sky penis that will have less return on investment than a couple thousand footers or 4 middle tier skyscrapers.

Maybe pre-Recession this could have be viable, like with the Spire(though there is no way of knowing that would have been completed even without the crash), but after that situation I just don't see anyone risking everything on a single building that has a big chance of failing. I just don't see anything bigger than +1200 feet getting built there. It appears that has roughly become the cap of big buildings in Chicago this day an age, and for me that's not a bad thing. Not every city needs a cloud dong to be proud of their city.

He said sky penis.

Kumdogmillionaire Mar 25, 2017 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller (Post 7751041)
Chicagoans, 1974-2005: Chicago has the tallest building in the world!
Chicagoans, 2017: We don't even need to talk about how tall our buildings are!

In all honesty, I hope this thread is locked until actual news appears.

Huh? I'm saying that companies won't do it, not that we don't want it. My one comment hardly speaks for Chicagoans on the whole

harryc Jun 12, 2017 1:02 PM

June 11
 

SteelMonkey Jun 12, 2017 3:01 PM

Those trees around the foundation rim are a slap in the face reminder of the staleness of this site. Seems even nature is embarrassed by what transpired (pardon the hidden pun) and is trying to conceal the scar

10023 Jun 12, 2017 3:51 PM

We just need to see something iconic in that location. It doesn't need to be a supertall.

Imagine the Via57 building in Manhattan on this site instead: https://www.via57west.com

UPChicago Jun 12, 2017 3:53 PM

please lock this thread


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.