SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | BMO Tower | 727 FT | 50 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224752)

The Lurker Dec 3, 2019 4:30 PM

Wait...when did this get a height bump. It's only 12 feet but I don't remember hearing about it or seeing any diagrams yet.

Edit: thank you, Steely

Steely Dan Dec 3, 2019 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker (Post 8765414)
Wait...when did this get a height bump. It's only 12 feet but I don't remember hearing about it or seeing any diagrams yet.

i was perusing some stuff over at the CTBUH's skyscrapercenter website and saw that they had this one listed at 727'.

as the 715' figure we originally had listed was a super-preliminary rough height estimate, i'm assuming that someone over at the CTBUH has seen something a little more specific/detailed height-wise.

Zapatan Dec 3, 2019 5:08 PM

That mockup looks awesome, this'll be a good tower

MorganChi Dec 5, 2019 12:05 AM

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...s7u-story.html

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 12:44 AM

^ Great, unsurprising news.

I would assume this might be a ~$650-700 mil tower or so.....

I found a Trib article, linked-to below, from last year where Rahm (of all people) reportedly stated it to be a $900 mil project. That figure seems substantially too high.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...210-story.html

chicubs111 Dec 5, 2019 12:49 AM

for 1.5 million square ft I though this building would be taller myself...alot of cites have there tallest office building cracking 900ft with this amount of square footage...i guess Chicago just prefers there thicker bigger floor plans in office towers as opposed to height.

aaron38 Dec 5, 2019 2:34 AM

In a city where 900 ft would be a new tallest, a builder may go the trophy route. But at that location in Chicago, with Sears right there, it’s hard to be noticed. Better to be economical than flashy.

bhawk66 Dec 5, 2019 3:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8767076)
for 1.5 million square ft I though this building would be taller myself...alot of cites have there tallest office building cracking 900ft with this amount of square footage...i guess Chicago just prefers there thicker bigger floor plans in office towers as opposed to height.

So when you say a lot of cities you mean NY, LA, Philadelphia, Houston Atlanta, Seattle, Cleveland and Dallas, right? Haha. j/k :cheers:

BVictor1 Dec 5, 2019 3:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorganChi (Post 8767033)

^^^You see... This is the type of announcement I need for 1000M. Not what the developer says.

Quote:

Work is set to begin this month on a 1.5 million-square-foot office tower alongside Union Station, after the developers landed a $476 million construction loan

Kumdogmillionaire Dec 5, 2019 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 8767138)
In a city where 900 ft would be a new tallest, a builder may go the trophy route. But at that location in Chicago, with Sears right there, it’s hard to be noticed. Better to be economical than flashy.

This is 100% the answer. Form follows function here thanks to Sears and Hancock being the King and Queen

chicubs111 Dec 5, 2019 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8767174)
So when you say a lot of cities you mean NY, LA, Philadelphia, Houston Atlanta, Seattle, Cleveland and Dallas, right? Haha. j/k :cheers:

forgot Charlotte and OKC ;)

BVictor1 Dec 5, 2019 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 8767061)
^ Great, unsurprising news.

I would assume this might be a ~$650-700 mil tower or so.....

I found a Trib article, linked-to below, from last year where Rahm (of all people) reportedly stated it to be a $900 mil project. That figure seems substantially too high.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...210-story.html

Perhaps that $900 million figure included the rehab to the headhouse and building out the space and adding the one floor for the hotel.

Steely Dan Dec 5, 2019 5:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8767076)
for 1.5 million square ft I though this building would be taller myself...alot of cites have there tallest office building cracking 900ft with this amount of square footage...i guess Chicago just prefers there thicker bigger floor plans in office towers as opposed to height.

it's important to remember that there are only 7 office towers in the US (outside of NYC) that have occupied space above 900'.

1. sears tower - chicago
2. aon center - chicago
3. US bank tower - LA
4. chase tower - houston
5. wells fargo - houston
6. salesforce - san francisco
7. columbia center - seattle

that's it outside of NYC. every other office tower in the nation that stretches above 900' uses spires or other rooftop embellishments to get there.

my point? 900+ vertical feet of occupied office levels is extremely rare in this country.

back in the late '80s boom, we saw 3 big office towers go up in chicago that ranged from 961' - 1,007' (franklin center, 2 pru, 311 S wacker), but all of them achieved their great height with spires and other roof top ornamentation. all 3 of them have occupied heights of just 820' - 843'.

these days in chicago, developers are not too keen on spending money on those kinds of height-boosting roof-top embellishments for bragging rights, so we end up with flat-roofed stuff like river point, 150 N riverside, 110 N wacker, BMO, and salesforce which really aren't a great deal lower than those late '80s office towers from an occupied height perspective.

in the entire history of chicago, only sears and aon truly stand out from the crowd of office towers for their incredible heights of occupied office space. office towers above ~850' just don't seem to pencil out in chicago, unless you stick a big giant pole on top of it.

i_am_hydrogen Dec 5, 2019 5:37 PM

BMO Harris Bank parent to cut 5% of workforce in cost-savings move, potentially affecting hundreds of Chicago-area employees
https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...lyq-story.html

chicubs111 Dec 5, 2019 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8767658)
it's important to remember that there are only 7 office towers in the US (outside of NYC) that have occupied space above 900'.

1. sears tower - chicago
2. aon center - chicago
3. US bank tower - LA
4. chase tower - houston
5. wells fargo - houston
6. salesforce - san francisco
7. columbia center - seattle

that's it outside of NYC. every other office tower in the nation that stretches above 900' uses spires or other rooftop embellishments to get there.

my point? 900+ vertical feet of occupied office levels is extremely rare in this country.

back in the late '80s boom, we saw 3 big office towers go up in chicago that ranged from 961' - 1,007' (franklin center, 2 pru, 311 S wacker), but all of them achieved their great height with spires and other roof top ornamentation. all 3 of them have occupied heights of just 820' - 843'.

these days in chicago, developers are not too keen on spending money on those kinds of height-boosting roof-top embellishments for bragging rights, so we end up with flat-roofed stuff like river point, 150 N riverside, 110 N wacker, BMO, and salesforce which really aren't a great deal lower than those late '80s office towers from an occupied height perspective.

in the entire history of chicago, only sears and aon truly stand out from the crowd of office towers for their incredible heights of occupied office space. office towers above ~850' just don't seem to pencil out in chicago, unless you stick a big giant pole on top of it.

A few roof-top embellishments here and there wouldn't hurt..just saying..lol..

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 8767449)
Perhaps that $900 million figure included the rehab to the headhouse and building out the space and adding the one floor for the hotel.


Could be indeed. That article specified the office tower, however possibly by mistake. $900 mil seems about plausible for both.
Really looking forward to the remainder of the Union Station restoration and hotel renovation/expansion - what a great project.

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen (Post 8767672)
BMO Harris Bank parent to cut 5% of workforce in cost-savings move, potentially affecting hundreds of Chicago-area employees
https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...lyq-story.html


IIRC, in another article on the cuts, around 400 Chicago jobs were referenced. I read this as little more than a routine, relatively run-of-the-mill corporate consolidation.

bhawk66 Dec 6, 2019 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8767424)
forgot Charlotte and OKC ;)

Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte is 871' and Devon Energy Center in OKC is 844' (Wiki)

There will be a new member of the 900 footers when 99 Hudson Street in Jersey City wraps up next year. The club must have been on it's radar as it clocks in at exactly 900'.

bhawk66 Dec 6, 2019 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8767658)
it's important to remember that there are only 7 office towers in the US (outside of NYC) that have occupied space above 900'.

1. sears tower - chicago
2. aon center - chicago
3. US bank tower - LA
4. chase tower - houston
5. wells fargo - houston
6. salesforce - san francisco
7. columbia center - seattle

that's it outside of NYC. every other office tower in the nation that stretches above 900' uses spires or other rooftop embellishments to get there.

my point? 900+ vertical feet of occupied office levels is extremely rare in this country.

back in the late '80s boom, we saw 3 big office towers go up in chicago that ranged from 961' - 1,007' (franklin center, 2 pru, 311 S wacker), but all of them achieved their great height with spires and other roof top ornamentation. all 3 of them have occupied heights of just 820' - 843'.

these days in chicago, developers are not too keen on spending money on those kinds of height-boosting roof-top embellishments for bragging rights, so we end up with flat-roofed stuff like river point, 150 N riverside, 110 N wacker, BMO, and salesforce which really aren't a great deal lower than those late '80s office towers from an occupied height perspective.

in the entire history of chicago, only sears and aon truly stand out from the crowd of office towers for their incredible heights of occupied office space. office towers above ~850' just don't seem to pencil out in chicago, unless you stick a big giant pole on top of it.

This is a really nice post Steely :tup:

Apey Dec 6, 2019 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8760639)

Really cool to see in live time, how the site is progressing! ;)


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.