SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | One Central (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239273)

Klippenstein Jun 13, 2021 10:39 PM

My assumption was that one of the components of this project would be to connect the Metra Electric line to Union Station. I’m now looking closer at the proposal and it’s a lot more convoluted than I realized.

Here’s what I thought their intention was/was hoping to see. Move the 18th street a little further north. Use the current CN tracks or build a second level to add service connecting to Union Station. Add a transfer stop at the new 16th street red line station when that is built.

What do you all think?

Busy Bee Jun 13, 2021 10:40 PM

^That sounds like a great idea, but no that's not what they were even remotely thinking of.

RockfordSoxFan Jun 14, 2021 2:09 AM

^^ I like that idea. Tunnel it right under Clinton @Union Station & build the 2nd loop. Call it the Gray Line. Convert Metra along the south shore later. Tie three solid proposals all into one. $$$

HomrQT Jun 14, 2021 1:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockfordSoxFan (Post 9310694)
^^ I like that idea. Tunnel it right under Clinton @Union Station & build the 2nd loop. Call it the Gray Line. Convert Metra along the south shore later. Tie three solid proposals all into one. $$$

Nice

ardecila Jun 14, 2021 2:00 PM

Yeah I tried explaining the CrossRail idea to the lead urban planner (direct O'Hare access!) at a public meeting a few years ago, his eyes just glazed over and I knew the whole transit thing was window dressing. They were neither interested in building useful transit nor qualified to plan/propose it.

SamInTheLoop Jun 14, 2021 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9310408)
Transit facilities aren't profitable outside of Asia (Hong Kong/Singapore/Japan etc). You need hyper-density PLUS a critical mass of population which is not feasible for Landmark to build even in their wildest dreams. And to truly be like an Asian city, they'd have to cut the lanes on LSD in half and charge steep tolls to force people onto public transit.

This still doesn't make any sense. They need to drop the transit center charade and just focus on building a vertical residential community like Lakeshore East using only private funding. Surely there is some density figure at which the cost of the rail deck pencils out. If they can do some kind of entertainment district for Soldier Field and rebuild the Metra stop (as a regular stop, not a "hub"), that's just gravy.


What you're stating re the project having to be massive/dense enough to justify the huge upfront infrastructure costs makes sense. However, my point (which I didn't articulate nearly well enough earlier) is that there is legitimate reason to be skeptical that the private market will be there to support the unit numbers and price points that will be required to make this thing pencil out. Now, perhaps I'm not thinking long-term enough here - as in a 25-30 year buildout? If the time horizon is long enough, I suppose, the demand should inevitably be there.

Something else to consider in terms of the feasibility of something this ambitious - and I think I've brought up before - what has Dunn/Landmark verifiably developed in terms of truly large scale stuff? It's nearly impossible for me to tell, as they've been involved in lots of projects in various capacities - but to my eyes a lot of that at least appears to be providing a variety of development related services - what have they been the actual operating developer on? Moreover, who are their actual operating developer partners on this project (not to mention equity partners)?

And, completely agree on your take re transit hub. That's a fever dream.

Mr Downtown Jun 15, 2021 3:01 AM

Don't make no sense.

If a developer can buy all the dirt he wants in the South Loop for around $40m per highrise . . . why would he pay $300m per building to get a platform he can build on? The views aren't going to be that much better.

Randomguy34 Jul 13, 2021 10:37 PM

Lol Streetsblog covered the full meeting and apparently it was an even bigger mess than what I saw in the first 30 minutes

With new details emerging, state funding for One Central makes even less sense
https://chi.streetsblog.org/2021/07/...en-less-sense/

- Illinois is legally required to follow through with state funding and cannot back out unless a new bill undoes it
- The bus system they're building is going to be an "autonomous vehicle" network
- One Central is partnering with a Chicago Bears to allow them to run several establishments. So the Bears are probably bluffing about moving to Arlington Heights
- They're looking into brining manufacturing back to the U.S. Steel site
- The ignored questions about why they new state funding if the project is already financed

SteelMonkey Jul 14, 2021 5:55 PM

"...partnering with the Bears to allow them to run several restaurants and memorabilia and gift shop for attendees and tourists"

I wouldnt read too much into that. The CBs will undoubtedly be in discussions with many people about future agreements. A retail shop and a few branded restaurants mean zippo in terms of possible relo. You will always want a presence in the city especially close to McCormick and the convention/expo crowds. These "agreements" are probably easy outs for the CBs anyway even if this thing moves forward. Just like breaking their lease at SF. Chump change in the grander scheme. OC people prob offered them a sweetheart proposal just so they could promote it at these meetings IMO

Mikelacey45 Jul 15, 2021 1:12 AM

https://urbanize.city/chicago/post/o...rs-transit-hub

galleyfox Sep 2, 2021 8:59 PM

Back like a boomerang.


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...ransit-benefit

sentinel Sep 2, 2021 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleyfox (Post 9385307)

https://s3-prod.chicagobusiness.com/...S%3D1630616744

This thing is silly.

SamInTheLoop Sep 2, 2021 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 9385318)
This thing is silly.


Indeed. Beyond laughable.

I'd vote to immediately and permanently close this thread. This thing is, and always has been, a joke.

About as "serious" a proposal as Bill Davies' Post Office towers.


This guy is claiming that his firm has spent tens of millions already on this. Good God. Would love to see those receipts. And if they exist - Good God.

Also, one of the tentative equity partners is listed as Johnson Controls. Huh?

jpIllInoIs Sep 2, 2021 10:40 PM

Not to go too OT - Promoting a connection to Soldier Field makes me hate this even more. Now is not the time to sink more $$ in that mess on the lakefront. While the Bears may not be successful in their attempt to locate to Arlington Hts it is a reality that could come to pass. Either way SF is the smallest NFL stadium and Chicago needs different location for its' NFL team. Preferably around Sox Park or UC.

Busy Bee Sep 3, 2021 12:58 AM

Things that make you go hmm...

oakesd88 Sep 3, 2021 3:26 AM

I'll step out as the lone voice crying, "I like it," and hope it continues to gain momentum and land endorsements.

marothisu Sep 3, 2021 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oakesd88 (Post 9385718)
I'll step out as the lone voice crying, "I like it," and hope it continues to gain momentum and land endorsements.

I actually don't hate the idea either, though I wonder how much traction it really has. I can't quite discern it yet as this guy is clearly a promoter.

moorhosj1 Sep 3, 2021 2:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 9385924)
I actually don't hate the idea either, though I wonder how much traction it really has. I can't quite discern it yet as this guy is clearly a promoter.

I find it interesting that Hinz added this update to the article. Makes it seem a little more "real".

Quote:

UPDATE—CTA now is out with a statement. It says that while “many additional considerations need to be measured and evaluated by the CTA before any decision is made,” the project includes enough “potential opportunities” for the CTA that it has entered into a preliminary engineering agreement to more fully evaluate what’s on the table.

Barrelfish Sep 3, 2021 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 9385924)
I actually don't hate the idea either, though I wonder how much traction it really has. I can't quite discern it yet as this guy is clearly a promoter.

This is my take as well. But the funding sources make me think this is a potential boondoggle.

If a Related was behind this, you'd think "they know what they are doing on super complex developments like this - if they are putting their money into it, it probably has legs". A quick perusal of the websites for the 3 private funders (Ullico, Loop Capital, and Johnson Controls) does not give the same feeling. Instead, my interpretation is "these guys probably got taken in by a good story and are in over their head".

Reminds me a bit of Theranos. Supposedly a super innovative biotech company, but none of the big biotech investors would touch them. Instead, their whole board was former generals and secretaries of state who didn't know anything about biotech, but bought the story.

Not saying that this project will turn out to be a pure fraud and vaporware like Theranos. But if it was, Johnson Controls won't be able to sniff it out the way that a Related could.

marothisu Sep 3, 2021 8:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrelfish (Post 9386053)
This is my take as well. But the funding sources make me think this is a potential boondoggle.

If a Related was behind this, you'd think "they know what they are doing on super complex developments like this - if they are putting their money into it, it probably has legs". A quick perusal of the websites for the 3 private funders (Ullico, Loop Capital, and Johnson Controls) does not give the same feeling. Instead, my interpretation is "these guys probably got taken in by a good story and are in over their head".

Reminds me a bit of Theranos. Supposedly a super innovative biotech company, but none of the big biotech investors would touch them. Instead, their whole board was former generals and secretaries of state who didn't know anything about biotech, but bought the story.

Not saying that this project will turn out to be a pure fraud and vaporware like Theranos. But if it was, Johnson Controls won't be able to sniff it out the way that a Related could.

I agree - I thought it was "whatever" until reading that they actually have some legitimate backers they're willing to name. Not only that, but a few transit agencies have talked about it which indicates they've probably realistically done some studies.

Johnson Controls is also huge and does much more revenue per year than Related. They're profitable too with at least a few billion in cash on hand. As far as someone putting up money goes, they're totally a viable company.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34 AM.

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