I know comment is tongue in cheek, but I have literally ridden more scooters in small digital agencies in Chicago than I have seen inside the offices of Google or Apple in the valley. ;)

The valley is largely a wasteland of cookie cutter suburban office building campuses with corporate intra-building transportation solutions. Flexibility for growth seems like a pretty big preference.

http://www.j-carlson.com/ancilary/gbike.jpg

Why not "groundscapers" with high-rise residential on top? Elevators may suck for office cohesion, but they're great for commuting.

That looks awfully similar to SOM renders I saw for One Bangkok, a massive 16 million sqft TOD project in Bangkok. So most likely one project got used renders (timing wise I'd assume The 78).

But that also tells me this more the Urban Design / Master Planners still doing this. Which would probably mean other than the big "statement" landscapes, nothing will look like the renders once buildings start getting designed by investment/development partners and their anchor tenants.

^ Well, obviously. That's usually how it goes with this kind of master planning exercise. Same for Lincoln Yards. The developer expects the project to be completed over multiple economic cycles, so why pay the architects to develop detailed building designs before you need them? Especially if you expect the mix of uses to shift over time in response to changing markets? We haven't even seen reliable renderings of the Discovery Institute, and that's the most surefire part of the while 78 project right now.

The original plans for Cityfront Center, Central Station, and Lakeshore East all included significant office space, but with the exception of NBC Tower, all office space was eventually deleted by the developers when office tenants decided to prioritize Metra access over everything else, and killed the new-build office market for anything east of State. (It didn't help that the city's promises of a downtown circulator transit line kept getting canceled)

Riverline was unique in that Perkins/Will developed detailed designs for Ancora and a few other towers at the same time as master-planning the site.

^ Speaking of, when will we start seeing some real office development in the West Loop (between the river and I-94)? I don’t just mean things like the (former) ABN Amro building, but real towers. There are plenty of parking lots and plenty of re-developable properties (like that hideous social security administration building).

There’s also plenty that must be preserved, like red brick warehouses or those Italianate former rowhouses on Jefferson between Randolph and the L, so hopefully protection is in place for this stuff before the development comes.

Separately, it would be cool to see Presidential Towers go through a redesign at ground level to better interact with the neighborhood, now that they’re not in the middle of nowhere.

you really need to come back and visit more often.

these two 700+ footers were just completed last year:

https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/...6453-92257.jpg
source: https://skyrisecities.com/news/2017/...-opens-chicago

^^^ There's also as much space as is contained in those two office towers currently under construction in the Post Office which is also between the freeway and the river...

What a silly question anyhow, as if people build skyscrapers places because that's the aesthetically pleasing place to put them in the skyline. Here's a hint: they ain't building shit over by the freeway until all the super desirable sites that are along the river or right on top of the train station are filled up. Why? Because what tenant is going to be like "yes, I'd like to anchor this tower that's 3 blocks further from the train stations, not on the river, and much further from the loop and L because the skyline needs to see more office towers on these vacant lots"... No, they are going to go into the trophy tower with permanent river views every. single. time.

you can take the boy out of wisconsin, but you can't take the wisconsin out of the boy ;)

It's a weird zone of desirability, not prestigious enough for marquee office towers compared to riverside or Wacker Drive sites, but too close to the CBD and too business-like for a real residential boom.

So, we get a slow trickle of the so-called "econoboxes" that aim for cost-conscious corporations who don't want to pay top-dollar rents, and a slow trickle of residential towers from people who want to be close to work but don't demand a bunch of amenities right outside the door.

Still, it's much much better than it used to be. There are multiple buildings that you can't see from Google Maps aerials yet. Virtually no open lots left on Clinton, Jefferson is starting to feel enclosed, and only Des Plaines is still a parking lot wasteland. I can probably count on one hand the number of large developable sites (parking lots) remaining. The bigger problem is how to encourage more development on the various small parking lots scattered throughout. Condos often are a good fit for smaller sites, but this neighborhood is too noisy for condos, and rental apartment developers are all about scale, scale, scale right now so they can spread out the cost of amenities. Why bother with a bunch of hassles on a small project when you can do a project ten times bigger somewhere else for only twice the headache?

Wow, you really are out of touch. Here goes:

Already addressed by Steely above

Already preserved and incorporated into a highrise apartment building that probably has wrapped up construction

Already done years ago. Redesigned, and retail storefronts now largely facing the street

^^to be fair, the 2 PT buildings between Jefferson & Desplaines still have a godawful street presence. Still, that area has REALLY improved.

The only "trophy lot" is the half block bounded by Jefferson, Desplaines, Monroe, and Adams - because of Heritage Green Park to the south and Old St. Patrick's complex to the west it will have light and views, it is 2 blocks from Union Station, quick highway access.

That's a ridiculous argument. Not all tenants can afford Class A office space on the river, nor do all tenants want to be next to the river. And not all developers own land next to the river. Mcdonald's and googke realky dropped the ball huh? Some tenants operate in the real world where there are unfortunately automobiles and expressways and they may even DESIRE to be closer to the expressway.
Imagine apartment hunting if it were simply a choice between an apartment overlooking the lake or one between a railroad and a freeway interchange in a bad area. If location and price werent factors I would live in One Museum Park but I'm not rich and I am employed in a different state

When did I ever say anything about being aesthetically pleasing in the skyline?

There are easily developable, essentially vacant, large parcels of land within walking distance of both major commuter rail stations. It’s not absurd to think they’d be developed at some point soon, probably before “the 78” (which is much less prime real estate).

No I’m not.

I’m not talking about the couple of buildings along the river. I’m talking about the surface lots and under-utilized land closer to the expressway.

Which are already preserved? There are lots of 19th century brick buildings in the area.

And if they’ve already rehabbed Presidential Towers, then they did a shitty fucking job. There’s still a blank wall on two sides of that parking garage, and so on. I walked past it on the way to dinner last fall.

Literally not a consideration I ever hear when talking to people about office leasing downtown. Distance to train station/transit? Sure. Hot hood with bars/food/entertainment so companies can attract the younger skilled employees they need? Yup. Must be next to a highway off ramp and major artery belching exhaust? Nope. Firm Nope.

^this

Here's a quote from a Crain's article published a few months ago about 625 W Adam's struggle to find tenants

^ well it’s a better office hub than residential hub with the stations, so hopefully it stays zoned that way until the demand is there.

Still think “the 78” is far more out of the way and less desirable, so I don’t know why they think they can land big corporate tenants here.

I have to agree, how is 625 W Adams not a good location for offices? It's right on top of the metra stations! Blocks from the loop and river. The 78's location is way worse for offices. There's nothing around there. I'd much rather be at 625 W Adams.

If you're going to lease piecemeal to a bunch of companies that's true but that is not how the 78 is being marketed. They're shopping it to big corporate entities that would want millions of square feet and the ability to have it and the surroundings built to their specification. Absent that interest I think it will end up more like Lakeshore east. Either way Related will make out fine, the latter course will just take longer.

In the end it's really hard to argue that 625 Adams is a superior office location if tenants don't agree by actually leasing space. As pointed out that area is in a weird zone that isn't particularly desirable.

^ Exactly, the proof is in the pudding. The law firms, media firms, etc that drive new construction want to be in buildings with a marquee address, dramatic architecture/setting, and proximity to transit, restaurants, etc. 625 W Adams satisfies only the transit box. The architecture isn’t even particularly good. Sometimes value-conscious corporations like Quaker, PepsiCo, USG, etc have moved to this area in an attempt to save money while remaining close to Metra. Think about the area around Penn Station in NY, which also remained an undesirable location for office until the city, Related, and other groups built up the Hudson Yards brand and hype.

Also, this section of the West Loop can’t be “zoned for office”. That’s not how the zoning code works. Downtown zoning categories are agnostic on office vs. residential. The only exception is DS, which bans residential, but that’s really more of a light industrial category for service uses or large-scale retail.

As for The 78.... it only works as an office site if a Fortune 500 level company comes in and builds their own ecosystem. It will obviously have a good Red Line connection at both ends of the site, so it is very accessible from the North Side City neighborhoods where a lot of young workers live. I’d also expect a pretty big boom in Bronzeville, especially in the former Robert Taylor Homes area close to the Red Line stop at 35th. Also some pretty serious gentrification pressure on Chinatown.

I agree on 625 Adams. If I was looking to relocate an office from Schaumburg to downtown, I’d park as close to Ogilvee as possible. Why do I want my workers going out to 2 hour 3 cocktail power lunches? (I eat at my desk). What do I care if there are good restuarants next door?
I’d want to minimize the commute as first priority. That maximizes my draw.

If restaurants want our business, they’ll come to the offices.

This is one of the more epic misunderstandings of modern recruitment and employee hiring strategy I've seen lately.

Also lol at how many people think 625 is a no brainer but it can't lease up. This is up there with the argument that Fulton Market isn't an office district and never will be but is getting a shit ton of office built because tenants are simply wrong.

It’s a 9 minute walk from Ogilvee.
You’re saying that modern recruitment says make my workers walk farther, take longer to get to/from work (thus reducing my draw and/or the time I can get from them) so that it’s easier for them to party during lunch (thus reducing their productivity)? LOL. Okay. Game on.

Amazingly out of touch.

I wonder if and when the Union Station parking garage tower project gets started, if that would bring in a critical mass of workers and office tenants that would help liven up this stretch of downtown and make it more desirable for tenants, and ultimately driving demand for more office towers?

This neighborhood isn't really all that bad. Excellent transportation connections, both Metra and CTA), and honestly Randolph and Fulton aren't too much of a walk away. Randolph east of 90/94 definitely has a growing scene with quite a few good restaurants and bars; Sepia, avec, Proxi, Blackbird (which is Michelin star rated). If this section of downtown has a sleepy reputation, I think it will shed it sooner rather than later.

^ To be fair, I think the leasing struggles at 625 West Adams are just generally indicative of how difficult it is to lease office space in Chicago. Even with a hot economy right now, office developers are still competing intensely for a relatively small number of anchor tenants and relocations, and changes in office design plus consolidations are reducing the footprint that each company occupies. If you want to fill office space, you have to be the coolest kid on the block... right now Sterling Bay is the coolest kid after landing Google and McDonalds and basically building a whole ecosystem in Fulton Market. They have the Morgan stop to bring in city workers, and they've figured out how to run private shuttle systems that bring people from Metra.

Still working on detailing these.

https://images2.imgbox.com/b2/fb/HL0SYpOr_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/1d/58/GzCIHJHV_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/48/e7/5MPjF8I5_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/d1/47/xAj0BKkw_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/76/6d/admDbcvZ_o.jpg

Um, you know those are mere placeholders, right? No building will ever be built that looks like any of the ones in the renderings we've seen so far (with the possible exception of the Discovery Partners Institute, which may be far enough along in design that something real was included).

Yes. My model is full of placeholders.

And your model is wonderful! Those shots from the east/south east are exciting because they anticipate the impact this project will have in adding layers of interest to the southern skyline. Keep up the awesome work. We appreciate it! (and silently envy your skills)

Wow. I hadn't quite realized the scale of the towers along Clark. If the actual construction resembles this model at all, South Loop will really start to form it's own ecosystem and become less of an appendage of the Loop.

^ Yeah, and they will make Dearborn Park seem ever more out of place. Which is good, since DP sucks and needs to go

Let the man have his fun...

I think it looks great, and gives a great idea of what we will be looking at very soon, even though the buildings will be somewhat different in the end

DP wouldn't be so bad if they opened up some of the gates for through traffic.

Yeah. We get it. You hate DP. Never mind that if that hadn't come first we'd still have a bunch of abandoned railway tracks.

I think the odds of that happening are about as great as pigs growing wings and taking to flight.

DP, which I join those who hate those walls, gives a bit of much needed green space in the midst of all that development. Remember the "park" on top of the British school? Well, um yeah. DP1 has not one but two parks, one right behind the station that is packed at all times, and another at the corner of Roosevelt and Clark that is used for all sorts of park-ish things, the tennis courts are busy, etc.

The only thing that's going to change Dearborn Park is GREEN. Not trees, but cash money buyouts by a real estate company with deep pockets. The process would take years with the process of so many units and obligatory hold-outs. That said, I honestly don't see the market supporting such an action for at least 25 years, if well ever.

I wish you saw Japanese style acquisitions but sadly we are not Tokyo for density and values.

The big Tokyo developers will spend 20-30 years acquiring blocks piecemeal, turning them into surface parking in the interim. They will face hold outs and simply wait for the next generation.

Are you suggesting that anything that would replace Dearborn Park would not have proposed parkland as a part of the development? It would be pretty inconceivable to think that the residents and alderman would accept such a plan without some thought given to public space.

Green space aside, the problem with Dearborn Park is the development's utter contempt for its surroundings. It cuts off all through streets, walls itself from the surrounding neighborhoods, and is designed as a private gated subdivision in the center of the city.

No one here is saying that DP isn't a product of its times. Yes, it brought vitality to the South Loop at a time when the city was on a hard downhill decline, but its time is up. It needs to be opened up to the rest of the city, or redeveloped entirely.

In due time, once all the available land in the South Loop is eaten up, DP1 will be seen as a ripe target for redevelopment. I believe Illinois law stipulates that an entire development can be bought outright if something like 60% of all the members of an HOA agree to a buyout. (The percentage may be a bit off, but I believe its in that ballpark). 20-25 years out sounds about right. Saying that it might never will be redeveloped is taking a very negative approach to the future desirability and vitality of central Chicago.

Uh, no. The percentage and logic are both off. It's not a giant condo building. It's individual homes.

They are not fee simple individual homes, but a part of a land subdivision regulated by a home owners association.

And actually, some of the properties in DP1 are indeed large condo buildings...

75% generally for large condo deconversions, but IIANM the State is looking to increase to 85%. Not sure if a different percentage would apply here. This kind of offer can be a tough sell. For example, I could envision families with children in local schools reluctant to sell even at a very high premium. I suppose there are always ways around challenges such as guaranteeing to make the homes available as rentals for a period of time. But I would hesitate to put any kind of timeline on a change happening in that area.

I don't really have a problem with DP's form... it's relatively dense and Plymouth is a nice quiet walk in between Printer's Row and Roosevelt, but they really need an entrance on Clark! And Having an entrace at State and 11th would be nice too. And maybe some retail spaces on State somehow? That side of the street is so dead.

Do you know that for a fact? You can still have fee-simple townhouses subject to a HOA declaration. You just have to set it up right, with the proper access easements and party wall agreements, etc. The rules regarding the buyout of a condominium would not apply.

I think unless you can persuade 100% of owners to sell, you'd have to do a hostile takeover and tear down all but the holdout houses, tear out the landscaping, stop shoveling snow, etc. Just utterly destroy the resale value of the holdout homes.

I do not know that for a fact, but I would imagine that since fee simple subdivisions do not appear to be the prevailing condition for most subdivided properties, the case would be similar for the DP1 town homes. I only know of one instance of a fee simple town home, one that a friend of mine owns along Grand in West Town; his realtor told him that its the only of that type he has ever come across. Its not outside the realm of possibility, but it appears to be a highly unlikely situation.

The majority of the units in DP1 would fall under the denser condo buildings along Clark and Polk, and along State from Polk to Roosevelt. I would imagine typical deconversion rules would apply to these.

In either case, all of this would be decades out at best. By then, with the age of the buildings, its not hard to imagine that a good majority of owners would rather accept a buyout than a crippling special assessment for major repairs. The property values would most likely have risen to the point that many owners might be happy to simply sell and move on.

There's no right or wrong answers, its all conjecture and fantasy at this point.

^ I agree that the multifamily are a little bit easier than the townhomes. I know fee-simple is the standard practice for any townhomes built by Belgravia (including the ticky-tacky Via Como on Grand, if that's the one...) It's not uncommon for other developers to build townhomes this way either.

Why can’t the redevelopment of DP be done in a piecemeal fashion, the same as any neighborhood? Of course the blessing of the HOA is required, but if that’s granted—admittedly, a big “if”—you don’t need to buy everyone out.

Piecemeal wont work if our goal is to reintegrate the street grid. The way that DP is currently set up is inward facing, walling off the surrounding city. Right now, no streets go through DP1, with the only entrance at 9th & State.

All the "white townhomes" of DP1 (144 units in seven clusters) are a single condominium association. That would be a tough, tough deconversion. That association also controls all access along Clark. I'd hoped the Target would lure them to unlock the Clark Street gate; instead they put another lock on it so you need the code to get out as well as in.

Lowest-hanging densification fruit is the "Garden Homes," the vaguely PoMo townhouses near Plymouth and Roosevelt, with the garages next to Roosevelt. That site was to have held DP1's third highrise until it became clear circa 1984 that was an unrealistic dream. You'd have the smallest number of units to purchase; I don't think they've aged/weathered particularly well; the site is suitable for a highrise especially if it has vehicular access from Roosevelt, and the PD wouldn't even have to be amended.

You'd have to wear an asbestos suit to any public meetings, though . . .

But asbestos is good now right?:koko:

Where there's a will, and demand, there's a way.

Right now there is still too much developable land in the South Loop so nothing will happen for the forseeable future. But combine diminishing vacant sites with higher property values, perhaps a new L stop (for the 78), and aging of the Dearborn Park properties to the point where there will be a substantial increase in maintenance costs, and eventually that whole neighborhood will be vanquished.

I'm pretty sure the city will have a lot of leverage with a developer who wants to upzone DP parcels that he plans to develop, one of which would be to force him to reconnect some streets that are currently cul de sac'd or walled off.