SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199537)

r18tdi Jan 9, 2016 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7291261)
... I couldn't agree more that this height obsession in general that many seem to have is quite childish and silly, I do have to admit that I agree with the point of there being some definite additional visual interest, aesthetically on the skyline, that this tower would provide at the 750'ish version, and would not at 700', as that just wouldn't clear the Wacker mini-plateau by enough...........................for what it's worth!

I'm in exactly the same boat. I don't fetishize height figures or praise height for height's sake, but I was certainly looking forward to this one being visible from further vantage points (especially from the river) and not just hiding behind its neighbors on Wacker.

LouisVanDerWright Jan 9, 2016 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 7293672)
I'm in exactly the same boat. I don't fetishize height figures or praise height for height's sake, but I was certainly looking forward to this one being visible from further vantage points (especially from the river) and not just hiding behind its neighbors on Wacker.

I agree about it's place in the skyline. As a building, I doubt the quality would be any less at 700' than at 750' or 780'. However, from a skyline composition perspective, it would be awfully nice to see at least the tip of this building rising above the mini plateau at 650-700'. It would have a nice "wedding cake effect" that would add to the composition of this major cluster of modern office towers.

ardecila Jan 11, 2016 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7293563)
Got it, thanks!

I actually went to check the same drawing set as skyguy_7. I guess it just didn't display correctly when he screencapped.

http://i68.tinypic.com/zxtvrq.jpg

HomrQT Jan 12, 2016 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7295507)
I actually went to check the same drawing set as skyguy_7. I guess it just didn't display correctly when he screencapped.

http://i68.tinypic.com/zxtvrq.jpg

MUCH better.

:cheers:

Skyguy_7 Jan 12, 2016 4:15 PM

My apologies if I caused any mild heart attacks. It would be a shame to lose the building's signature look. Not to worry, it's still very much there.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-i...-no/CHI348.jpg

scalziand Jan 12, 2016 6:36 PM

It's incredible how subtle the effect actually is.

The Lurker Jan 13, 2016 7:14 AM

This effect should be striking on partly cloudy days

SamInTheLoop Feb 1, 2016 3:59 PM

Could this one land Sidley?
 
I have no idea what the prospects are, but I believe Sidley's current lease end date at 1 South Dearborn would work well for a prospective 130 N Franklin anchor lease assuming construction start by early 2017............just throwing it out there as a speculative possibility.......

go go white sox Jun 6, 2016 10:23 AM

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...rriving-at-130

This one looks to be finally getting started one of my favorite designs of this cycle.

Skyguy_7 Jun 6, 2016 12:32 PM

Hallelujah, What great news to start our week! Calling all bananas.....

the urban politician Jun 6, 2016 12:55 PM

^ Spec, or have they quietly landed tenants and financing?

LouisVanDerWright Jun 6, 2016 1:23 PM

Hopefully they've landed all of the remaining F500 HQs in the suburbs.

rlw777 Jun 6, 2016 3:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go go white sox (Post 7464368)
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...rriving-at-130

This one looks to be finally getting started one of my favorite designs of this cycle.

Awesome news if it's correct.

r18tdi Jun 6, 2016 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go go white sox (Post 7464368)
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...rriving-at-130

This one looks to be finally getting started one of my favorite designs of this cycle.

Don't think I've seen any sort of permits or tenant announcements. Maybe they're readying a new parking lot? :shrug:

SamInTheLoop Jun 6, 2016 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 7464669)
Maybe they're readying a new parking lot? :shrug


Let's hope not! That would be an epic disappointment.


I don't know if I ever mentioned it, but I believe CoStar (fully realize CoStar is loaded with all kinds of BS info all the time) early in the year had switched anticipated start date for 130 to June or July 2016.......who knows - it could just be that that was correct?.......


This would be huge. There certainly are tenants out there that are looking for space - thinking mainly in the traditional office-using firm types - your law firms, professional and business services, etc - that would be the target tenants for this tower.........

Fingers and toes crossed on this news!!

harryc Jun 6, 2016 5:33 PM

Is the new building taking both lots (Wash to Randolph) or just the S lot (Wash to W Court) ?

jdcpamba Jun 6, 2016 5:34 PM

They are digging today.

SolarWind Jun 6, 2016 6:12 PM

June 6, 2016


the urban politician Jun 6, 2016 6:16 PM

^ That ain't no parking lot getting built

harryc Jun 6, 2016 6:20 PM

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/6/6/1...p-construction


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:38 PM.

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