plz stop Chicago. It isn't funny anymore :sly:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Bj5B...00x920.0.0.jpg

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ecEQ...lView_1_.0.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/50PC6jKT/4998f3...5357-s-4-2.jpg

^Agreed. Looks like a recycled version of the other 2.

Don't forget about the original from last decade:

https://www.emporis.com/images/show/...-southeast.jpg
Source: https://www.emporis.com/images/detai...-the-southeast

I honestly don't mind when architectural periods produce groups of similar looking buildings. The style will eventually change and it keeps the cityscape more integrated and consistent visually. Helps prevent Dubaitis.

^ Some of the most beloved designs (period pieces) are the same design replicated 10,000 times (i.e. the Chicago bungalow)

^ yeah but the old design was so sexy, its a tragedy we lost it. This new design would be a great filler farther south, not this close to 110 wacker.

I think it's just amazing these 3 huge buildings will tuck away into Chicago's skyline. In virtually any other city in the US besides NYC these buildings would be very prominent.

So you're saying there's a chance?????

:naughty:

I just want this lot filled at this point. Get it done Devs.

BMO will actually stand out

Yep, and different doesn't always mean good (also referring to Dubai here). If it ain't broke and we're not building 30 of the same tower then I see no problem. I just wonder what kind of cliche/derivative designs we'll be bemoaning in 10 years :haha:

From some angles yes, from many angles it will disappear in the forest of skyscrapers we have.

If you look at this plot on google maps doesnt it seem rather large for this building to cover?..it looks like there are 2 different blocks between 100 to 130 north Franklin...they could easily fit 2 buildings there?

I'd say it'll stick out from more angles than it'll be disappeared because of its positioning. From all Western and Southern views it'll be prominent, and some Northern. I can't completely envision it from the East over the lake, but even there I think it may be visible from Southeasterly views

This one will be completely blocked from the west by the taller 110 N Wacker.

While we are talking about possible building trends in Chicago, I would love to see more bundled tube (Sears)/multiple setback(Nema) towers built in the next few years. I really like Detroit's Hudson Tower, too.

I wanna see more canyon ranch's in chicago. Another huge miss for this city. Yeah its a little Miami/Dallas but would have been a good change of pace from the blue boxes.

That's quite an ambitious depiction of trees.

Oh duh, I was thinking about BMO tower :haha:

The tree fad will continue until one grows large enough that a thunderstorm takes one off the 40th floor and puts it through the roof of a car or someone's window killing them. Then the litigation lawyers will ensure we never see a rooftop tree again.

^^^ It's sustainable timber harvest! Obviously they have to be logged every 15 years and then replanted....

As for the building, 750ft of soulless, forgettable infill. Oh well.

I’m somewhat surprised that they haven’t shifted the siting of the tower as far north as possible on site to change that (allowing at least partial views far west over shorter Boeing tower just across river).


I’m disappointed in the redesign as many others are, but at this point, I just want them to finally land an anchor tenant for this and build the damn thing.

Truer words have not been spoken. It will be a great victory for this project just to hear they have obtained a tenant.
130 N Franklin has been a tortured process to say the least..

Eh, I'm ok with this one languishing on the vine for a while. This site is one that actually could support a much larger building and exposing it to some pent up demand might actually result in such an outcome. I'm ok with it getting built as well, but there aren't many sites that deserve a worthy "replacement" such as this.

Reminds me of 4WTC now.

I was super excited about the first design and was hoping it would get started soon.But because of the new boring design I hope this stays on delayed till something better gets designed. Otherwise Ok filler.

I guess the original design was out of their budget?

I like this though, it's sleek and simple. I mean yea you could argue it's kinda lame but realistically not every building is going to be a 1200 foot masterpiece.

^ This never made sense to me. When your going to an architect to design a serious proposal, not a vision, they would have to give those people a budget to work and design with. Its just a stupid waste of time for both parties to have a $400 million budget but have someone design you a $700 million tower. Those numbers an obvious exaggeration but you get my point. Unless I'm wrong didn't the original design have money/banks secured and approval from the city?

I just don't see this one starting any time soon. There are so many competing projects further ahead with plenty of room still available: 110 wacker, salesforce, bmo, post office, everything in Fulton Market, etc.

Perhaps you are right, but I would think that a corporation that wants to occupy a large space, and have its own namesake on a tall office building downtown would still find 130 N Franklin quite attractive. I guess that begs the question though, why has it not happened up to this point. Could it be location, cost, timing, etc.

It’s all about the anchor tenant. 110, WPS, union Station Tower, and it looks like now OPO already each have their anchor tenant. So, those projects aren’t competing with 130 for an anchor tenant - which is the only prerequisite pre-leasing-wise, to landing construction financing and launching a large new downtown office tower.

And - to be clear - there are still multiple large prospective anchor tenants in the market right now. These are -as always - mostly the typical potential relocation from existing downtown space- type new tower anchor tenant. And - as usual - mainly your traditional downtown office-using industries - financial, legal, professional and business services, etc.

The answer is likely not location, cost, timing - any of that.

Answer is more likely found in the competence/efforts/local experience, etc, etc of the development - and importantly - leasing teams. Tishman Speyer is a large owner in Chicago but has not been a significant developer locally. Who is doing their leasing here? Are those the right individuals to land an anchor tenant?? If not, has a change been made after a few years of having anchor tenant after anchor tenant slip through their fingers and lost to other projects. If not, why in the world not? Tishman Speyer has no one to blame but themselves for their lack of success to-date over the last few years with 130 North Franklin.

There is a lot of variation in the experience and competence of specific developers and leasing teams - non-market factors that are crucially important to keep front of mind when assessing, handicapping etc various specific developments’ prospects. A great example is how I was so confident in laughing off that developer’s ‘proposal’ for that South Loop assisted living tower. All one had to do was spend 3 mins. looking into the developer and relevant experience to assess it as nothing more than a fantasy (nothing to do with market factors, business models in the abstract, pent-up demand, etc).

Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop (no pun intended) when it comes to Chicago projects but what's planned (if anything) for the large empty lot one block east of 110 N Wacker? It's along N Franklin street and W Washington.

130 North Franklin
https://tishmanspeyer.com/properties/130-north-franklin

It's not a spertall so you may not have heard of it:D

There's a thread for it but unfortunately I think that rendering is outdated. The most recent rendering is a tower that takes the stepped massing of 110 N. Wacker and the upcoming Union station tower a step further, but two steps back in design and detailing.

Right, I started the thread (or this one now that these posts have been moved from the Chicago projects thread) a few years ago for that project but forgot the exact location of the tower, I didn't realize it was so close to the river.

It's a misconception that I only get excited over supertalls, lol. The original design for this was awesome, sad it's no longer a thing... this would be a good location for a supertall though, maybe next cycle?

Apparently there's so much light coming in that this building will not need lights! *(

The stainless steel is growing on me. These are some really nice renderings. Killer views too. Woof!

Here's my latest thought on this. I bet the original proposal for this expected to have guaranteed views to the west on the upper floors. But now, 110 Wacker is there at 814ft.

To me, this site now makes better economic sense as a supertall that breaks out above the 800' plateau. I wonder if they'll consider this, or forge ahead as essentially infill. 750' infill, but yeah.

Edit: I'm going to throw this out there. THIS would make an awesome casino site. With a tapering supertall above. It's got location.

I was thinking the same thing yesterday. Something 900-1000+ ft would look great popping up behind 110 when viewed from the west. I'm sure that is the least of the developer's concerns though.

It is prime real estate, 750' seems like a waste.

What Tishman Speyer should do here - I think I may have mentioned before - is pull the tower to the northern edge of the site. I think this would provide the best views in aggregate and specifically provide better westward views - for at least the northern half-or-so of the repositioned tower.

I think that I recently read they have a brand new head of development for Chicago.....so maybe if they reassess a little, they’ll come to this conclusion as well.

Exactly how "prime" is this real estate?

One of the longest economic expansions in recent memory, record downtown job growth, low interest rates, a rebirth of companies and people moving downtown, and they still couldn't get this shit off the ground?

Hell, the Old Post Office got sold posthumously by a halfwit landbanker in Britain, got a $1 billion loan, and is now sopping up tenants like the world outside the OPO is about to end.

That huge albatross should never have made it out of the abyss, but a bunch of New Yorkers had vision and are rebuilding it into what will certainly be one of downtown Chicago's most valuable assets.

Meanwhile, these clowns who own 130 N Franklin can't get this one project off the ground.

Yeah....they really have no one but themselves to blame. It’s been a D- effort to-date at best.

A damn shame it is...

I wonder if it's costing them to hold onto the site, or if they could just sell it to someone else?

Imagine how awesome a 1,200 footer would look here! Omg! Would help close the gap from Willis Tower to all the other supertalls. Ugh. I hope this doesn't get built so the lot can be saved for a supertall

So is this like completely canceled now?

Why?

I mean I think it's exactly where it was a year ago...and the year before that...it was never really *fully* alive so it could have been "canceled" a while ago, but AFAIK Tishman Speyer is still holding on to it...which has to mean...something, right?

I will say, that I think the fact that TSP is developing 320 n. Sangamon was them kinda, for lack of a better word, gauging the Chicago office market (pre-pandemic). Obviously, TSP is experienced, but they have little development in Chicago. How what's going on right now affected this? IDK.

Also, now that Riverside has developed pretty much all their loop properties (that we know of) there could be more interest in this property; this could also be why Murphy wants to move ahead with 301(?) s. Wacker.

I imagine this site will be back in play for the next trophy office tower, whenever the office market recovers. I like the chances. It's really one of only a tiny handful of sites in a strong location where you can do a big tower and give it some breathing room with park/plaza.

301 S Wacker I am skeptical about. It has that Wacker Drive address, but in other respects it's kind of a ho-hum site for highrise development. In order to get respectable floorplates they need to sandwich the new building up against 311 awkwardly and eliminate all the open space. I honestly think that might be a better site for a hotel - they can offer bundle deals with the Skydeck and do a more slender building, kind of like how the Hotel Palomar building on State sidles up to the AMA Building. Pre-Covid there was some pretty strong hotel growth in the Central/SW Loop with JW Marriott, Hyatt Centric, etc.

Residential might work at 301 as well, but I think 255 W Van Buren cast a negative light on SW Loop residential. Things may be different with the OPO re-opened, though.

I'm kinda glad they're not jumping the gun and wasting the site on some 700+ box at the moment. Hopefully they'll build something more worthy when the time comes.