SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 301 & 321 S Wacker Drive | 2 x 775 FT | 2 x 49 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225692)

pianowizard Oct 23, 2020 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 9082722)
Perhaps ego is also involved / having a trophy tower to show off

These would become the tallest twin buildings in the US, beating the 751' Time Warner Center in NYC. So yeah, ego is likely involved.

bhawk66 Oct 23, 2020 2:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 9082496)
I think so, triplets even if I'm not mistaken. That would have been cool (or weird).

Good to know this is back on track potentially. Pretty boxy but sorta interesting at the same time.

Triplets is right. If you can see the "wings" on the back of the existing 311 S, that's where they were supposed to be attached to. Funny, now it's just assumed the building by itself was supposed to look like that. Kind of awkward in actuality, but forgivable.

ithakas Oct 23, 2020 2:35 PM

I hope the southern twin gets built first and something taller than 311 S. Wacker gets built on the northern lot (likely much later), purely for skyline gap-filling reasons.

pianowizard Oct 23, 2020 4:37 PM

^We are referring to the 1% who are interested in these sorts of things, and thus design buildings that set new records and/or include vanity height elements like spires and crowns.

bgsrand Oct 23, 2020 4:44 PM

Wont the Manhattan West (1&2) developments be the tallest twins upon completion of 2?

Zapatan Oct 23, 2020 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgsrand (Post 9083196)
Wont the Manhattan West (1&2) developments be the tallest twins upon completion of 2?

They're not identical twins. One is noticeably shorter than the other.

Quote:

Not trying to call you out specifically, but it's entertaining just how often people here think that tallest, tallest in an obscure category (twin offices?), or some other ego booster is what motivates developers...99% (and speaking as a developer) barely give those things a thought - the number one ego trip element is profit margin (mixed with quality work and happy bank / investors).

An extra foot that costs $$$ is a "who gives a crap" moment for developers, especially if it triggers redesign
Most of the time this is probably true but there are still certainly developers wanting to make a mark some way or another. Tallest twin towers is a pretty good category for that.

sentinel Oct 23, 2020 5:28 PM

I just want the design to be thoughtful, but hopefully unique and interesting; height is secondary.

Zapatan Oct 23, 2020 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 9083270)
I just want the design to be thoughtful, but hopefully unique and interesting; height is secondary.

Seems they have sky gardens, I think that's a pretty cool design element, regardless of boxiness.

Height is kinda meh, especially next to Sears

maru2501 Oct 23, 2020 6:50 PM

It is a surprise this would have traction, even realizing developers are looking several years out, and investors can't just buy gold bars all the time

ardecila Oct 23, 2020 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexxed82 (Post 9082647)
I'm good at taking photos of architecture, but understanding its associated real estate is not my forte.

Can someone explain to me how/why developers are planning on building any new office towers in this environment? With all the new office space coming online (110, BMO, Salesforce, Post Office, etc.) and how our society has successfully (not in all cases, obviously) learned to work from home, what's the rush to build new office space before knowing what the future work environment will look like?

In a competitive market like Chicago, every developer is looking for an advantage, or a *potential* advantage over rivals. If the office market starts to rebound, and if this developer is in position to break ground immediately, they have a huge advantage. Other developers will not be able to match this head start.

A groundbreaking in late 2021 is likely after the pandemic is effectively over, we should have widespread and available vaccinations by that time. It may be late enough for the developers to assess the office market and have enough information to pull the trigger or not. This only works if they already have their ducks in a row.

If you're skeptical the office market will actually rebound post-Covid, you're not alone... but in a properly functioning market there's always a few people who are betting against the conventional wisdom. Occasionally they strike it big.

Skyguy_7 Oct 23, 2020 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 9083072)
...snip...the number one ego trip element is profit margin (mixed with quality work and happy bank / investors).

This is a great comment and it needs to be repeated. :cheers:

vexxed82 Oct 23, 2020 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9083390)
In a competitive market like Chicago, every developer is looking for an advantage, or a *potential* advantage over rivals. If the office market starts to rebound, and if this developer is in position to break ground immediately, they have a huge advantage. Other developers will not be able to match this head start.

A groundbreaking in late 2021 is likely after the pandemic is effectively over, we should have widespread and available vaccinations by that time. It may be late enough for the developers to assess the office market and have enough information to pull the trigger or not. This only works if they already have their ducks in a row.

If you're skeptical the office market will actually rebound post-Covid, you're not alone... but in a properly functioning market there's always a few people who are betting against the conventional wisdom. Occasionally they strike it big.

I guess if I consider this a risky gamble, it makes much more sense. But with all of the new space that was slated to come online, filling just filling that office space in a post-COVID world seems like it would be a successful rebound in and of itself. Though I shouldn't complain. I'm all for building, so fingers crossed it moves forward.

ardecila Oct 23, 2020 10:34 PM

For some tenants, being the first or second tenant to sign onto a proposed tower comes with certain advantages. You have your pick of the floors in the building, unlimited flexibility to rent multiple adjacent floors in a block as needed, and you have a lot of leverage to get concessions, rent breaks or even sometimes design changes out of the developer. Sometimes naming rights are at stake, signage/branding opportunities, etc.

If a tenant is looking at a new building that's 50-60% leased and already under construction, they have a lot less leverage when they cut a deal with the developer.

Tom In Chicago Oct 24, 2020 9:30 PM

Going through my archives I finally found the massing diagram showing the original 3 tower proposal by Lincoln Properties back in the late 1980s. . .



. . .

Tom In Chicago Oct 24, 2020 9:36 PM

Also somewhat related. . . found an old rendering in an issue of Inland Architect from 1990 that indicated there were supposed to be small fin-like spires atop 311. . .



. . .

VKChaz Oct 25, 2020 3:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 9083044)
Triplets is right. If you can see the "wings" on the back of the existing 311 S, that's where they were supposed to be attached to. Funny, now it's just assumed the building by itself was supposed to look like that. Kind of awkward in actuality, but forgivable.

Would have been nice to have had three towers making use of granite cladding. Instead of what looks to be cookie-cutter blue glass

Ned.B Oct 26, 2020 1:52 PM

I have two concerns for this development:

First I think we had heard originally that the north twin might be built first. It would be a shame though to lose that green space (which is actually really well used in the summer, but probably would be less so in the shade of a tower to the south) while that parking lot persists for years or decades more.

Second, from a study that our office took on for the building a few years back, there is a good chance that the towers will also come with a complete reconstruction of the winter garden, which I would hate to see turned into a bland austere modern space.

HomrQT Oct 26, 2020 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago (Post 9084364)
Going through my archives I finally found the massing diagram showing the original 3 tower proposal by Lincoln Properties back in the late 1980s. . .



. . .

Dang, that would have been awesome. Thanks for sharing! :cheers:

Toasty Joe Oct 27, 2020 5:55 AM

bummed with the uninspired design & height... could they even build a tower taller than 311 s wacker (say southern lot only) given proximity to the illuminated crown?

TallBob Oct 27, 2020 7:28 AM

Why 2 towers anyway? How about ONE 1100 footer and know the thing will probably be 40% average vacancy for 3-4 years? The extra cost of construction (time wasted for a future development that may not happen at all) and digging another Hole should end up costing about the same as a single much taller building.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:47 AM.

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