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)

r18tdi Sep 3, 2021 8:37 PM

The transit "study" that the Crain's article cites: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1630619884

SamInTheLoop Sep 3, 2021 8:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 9386446)
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.


Noted real estate investor, Johnson Controls. Corporate size is irrelevant - it's not what they do.

Guys, let's use some common sense. These are not firm commitments - I guarantee you that. These are "tentative" - they don't mean anything....again, I guarantee you there is no risk involved in these. Prove me wrong.

Barrelfish - I sense you have the right instincts. It feels like a boondoggle, doesn't it? You're right to think that a project of this enormous size and complexity should have a developer and firm institutional/private equity partners (and subsequently the same on the debt side) commensurate with the task. What do you think folks in the offices of your Relateds, Lend Leases, Brookfields, etc are saying about this project amongst themselves when they see this nonsense? I think you can venture a strong guess.

But, you don't need to use some famous wall street darling megafraud as a corporate comparison - this is real estate development....mere gaudy showmanship - if that is in fact what we're looking at here - happens all the time in the industry. There's a strong culture of promoters and outright carnival barkers in land development, and it's been that way in the US probably since the 1700s, if not before.

And, it's not even necessarily outright fraud at all when it comes to this stuff. It's just presenting a vision of something that is in fact a preposterous pipe dream, and talking it up big, and getting others - here, especially public officials/government agencies, etc, to consider it real, or at least be willing to go along for the ride.

This is why I always, always, implore folks to study developers' and their partners' relevant track records when grand developments (or maybe not even so grand) are proposed. What have they actually developed or financed? Just start with their website and branch out from there. Simplest thing to do. I honestly can't tell what this guy has actually developed. He's somehow been involved in a bunch of projects, but if you look at the services list, it runs the gamut to small ancillary real estate related services. I literally have no clue, but I suspect it's much less than the casual observer would quickly surmise.

Generally speaking, know a Bill Davies when you see one. Know a Garrett Kelleher. Be smart.

marothisu Sep 3, 2021 8:58 PM

^ I think everyone, including me, is in agreement that there's quite a bit of fluff with this thing. But at the same time, it might have...10% legs. Chances are it never happens.

Zapatan Sep 3, 2021 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 9386530)
^ I think everyone, including me, is in agreement that there's quite a bit of fluff with this thing. But at the same time, it might have...10% legs. Chances are it never happens.

While it doesn't seem likely, what's the point of proposing something like this if there's no intention of it happening? Such an expansion of the downtown would be awesome, even if it took 10-15 years.

Not sure if this has been posted either:

Developer sees One Central project as where Chicago goes to grow

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/9/...-transit-study

Randomguy34 Sep 4, 2021 12:08 AM

This line gave me a laugh:

Quote:

Dunn said his financial partners include the union-backed insurance firm Ullico; JLC Infrastructure, which is part of Loop Capital; and Johnson Controls. His high-rises might cost $20 billion, but estimates at this point are guesses.

gandalf612 Sep 4, 2021 1:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 9386508)
The transit "study" that the Crain's article cites: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1630619884

The study says One Central will become the busiest station in Chicago. That's funny.

Kngkyle Sep 4, 2021 3:35 AM

The transit study they reference is a joke, the $6.5 billion price they are trying to extort from the state is a joke, their finance partners are a joke.

Other than that, I hope they succeed. :tup:

But in all honesty I think there is some small chance that this could work, but that certainly doesn't involve billions from the state. Tie this project in with the casino and a soldier field expansion/doming (some deal worked out to keep the Bears) and remove half of the transit elements/state funding and you get to something that could work if the stars all align.

Not holding my breathe.

Mr Downtown Sep 4, 2021 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 9386678)
what's the point of proposing something like this if there's no intention of it happening?

Some gambles have short odds; some are long shots. Some developers (Bob Wislow) are pretty cautious and risk-averse; some developers will take the long odds in hopes of a bigger payout.

My guess is that Forest City/Central Station has been sitting on these air rights, Jerry Fogelson (who's 88) didn't feel he had the energy to gin them up into something, and went looking for a new partner. Landmark/Dunn thought "we've done projects with NFL teams, this is next to Soldier Field, we've done projects with public bonding before, the money we have to put up is very little, there's a couple of investment groups who'll take my calls, and if the chips fall right there could be a big payoff."

Randomguy34 Sep 21, 2021 2:10 AM

Lightfoot talks enhancing and expanding Soldier Field to keep the Bears
Quote:

Mayor Lori Lightfoot is doubling down in the city’s efforts to keep the Chicago Bears at Soldier Field, saying she not only is waiting for the team to present its wish list but hopes to use the issue as a fulcrum for a wider effort to turn the area into a major entertainment and dining center.

In an interview with Crain’s editorial board, Lightfoot signaled interest in a pending proposal by developer Bob Dunn for a $20 billion transportation/retail/residential complex that would be constructed on a platform over Metra Electric tracks immediately west of Soldier Field.

The mayor termed a question about whether the city’s vision for the greater Soldier Field area and Dunn’s plans for One Central jibe as “interesting,” implying that it might meet her desire to make that section of the lakefront “a year-round destination.” Of course, Dunn will first have to convince Near South Side residents that his plan is good for them, too, she added.
....
Part of doing so might be to think bigger than just the Bears, Lightfoot went on to suggest. Specifically, she said, Chicago needs to use its football stadium as the catalyst for bigger economic development. “We have a real opportunity here for a year-round destination.” The city “has just started looking” at how to accomplish that, she continued. But could Dunn’s proposal be part of accomplishing that?

“That’s an interesting question,” Lightfoot replied after a notable pause. “We need to understand what the actual plan is. It’s morphed over time.”

Dunn will have to satisfy nearby residents, Lightfoot cautioned. (The local alderman, Pat Dowell, 3rd, has indicated the plan is improving but has not committed herself one way or the other.) Whatever occurs “has to meet the residents’ vision of what they want to see right out front of their door.”
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...-soldier-field

LouisVanDerWright Sep 22, 2021 2:36 PM

^^^ I'm surprised Lightfoot hasnt already fallen into the classic Chicago mayor's short man's syndrome of pushing for tall buildings before. She is probably the shortest mayor in Chicago history, you'd think she would be trying to get a new WTB approved.

In any case, hopefully this means she is planning on pushing for the casino to go here. Honestly the only way this project ever happens is if it includes a casino, buy in from the Bears, and literally every other piece just falls into place for the developer...

twister244 Sep 22, 2021 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 9403684)
In any case, hopefully this means she is planning on pushing for the casino to go here. Honestly the only way this project ever happens is if it includes a casino, buy in from the Bears, and literally every other piece just falls into place for the developer...

Agreed.

I just can't imagine the Bears in Arlington Heights.... I know the space is there, and there's reason to put it there, but still..... Gross.

Wrap this all up with a Casino bow and make it happen to the Bears stay in the city.

Chicagoguy Sep 22, 2021 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twister244 (Post 9403783)
Agreed.

I just can't imagine the Bears in Arlington Heights.... I know the space is there, and there's reason to put it there, but still..... Gross.

Wrap this all up with a Casino bow and make it happen to the Bears stay in the city.

I imagine a new stadium will eventually be built just south of Soldier Field for the Bears, and then the Fire will continue to utilize Soldier Field.

left of center Sep 22, 2021 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy (Post 9403856)
I imagine a new stadium will eventually be built just south of Soldier Field for the Bears, and then the Fire will continue to utilize Soldier Field.

Friends of the Parking Lot will fight with the energy of a 1000 suns to keep that from happening :haha:

bnk Sep 22, 2021 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 9402223)
Lightfoot talks enhancing and expanding Soldier Field to keep the Bears

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...-soldier-field

Year round facility has to include some kind of dome. Im not sure how they could do that without dismantling half or more of solder field. Probably would take more than a full football season to do too, 1.5 years.
the Current SF never should have been built to that size when the bears could easily sell out 100K tickets a game. It like the smallest NFL in the entire NFL, What were they thinking? Cant even host a superbowl it doesn't come close to the min requirments. The fucking UFO was out dated even before they started construction.
Id rather start over with something new next to solder field.

Chisouthside Sep 22, 2021 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 9404202)
Year round facility has to include some kind of dome. Im not sure how they could do that without dismantling half or more of solder field. Probably would take more than a full football season to do too, 1.5 years.
the Current SF never should have been built to that size when the bears could easily sell out 100K tickets a game. It like the smallest NFL in the entire NFL, What were they thinking? Cant even host a superbowl it doesn't come close to the min requirments. The fucking UFO was out dated even before they started construction.
Id rather start over with something new next to solder field.

can a new larger stadium even fit in any of the lots south of soldier field?

bnk Sep 22, 2021 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisouthside (Post 9404211)
can a new larger stadium even fit in any of the lots south of soldier field?

There are a lot of surface parking lots south of SF


But what would "Friends of save the parking lots" say except for a lawsuit

The Lucas Museum was to go in the round parking lot in this map


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8584...6159944,17.34z

It would be larger than the Lucas Museum but with redirection of some roads and going into MP parking lots, easy but also expensive.

left of center Sep 23, 2021 3:12 AM

How feasible would it be so simply widen the existing footprint of Soldier Field? Demolish the UFO, move the east colonnades 100 feet closer to the lake, and build a domed stadium in between?

It couldn't be that much more expensive than a brand new complex out in Arlington, or fighting endless legal battles with building a new stadium immediately to the south of the existing SF, right?

nomarandlee Sep 23, 2021 4:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 9404493)
How feasible would it be so simply widen the existing footprint of Soldier Field? Demolish the UFO, move the east colonnades 100 feet closer to the lake, and build a domed stadium in between?

It couldn't be that much more expensive than a brand new complex out in Arlington, or fighting endless legal battles with building a new stadium immediately to the south of the existing SF, right?

I've wondered if something similar is possible. Giving the colonnades there is a lot more room to work with on the north/south sides of the field. In this scenario, I would demolish everything and line up the end zones E/W pointing towards the Colonades instead of N/S. Then you build two very large multi-level stands on the north/south. I would enclose all of it or make a retractable dome over it. The colonnades would serve as types of end zone gateways into the new stadium.

dropdeaded209 Sep 23, 2021 5:25 AM

what's wrong with Soldier Field?

lu9 Sep 23, 2021 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209 (Post 9404562)
what's wrong with Soldier Field?

1. Smallest stadium in the NFL for starters. Too small to host the world cup for example (not included in the North American bid to host- horribly embarrassing especially considering US Soccer is headquartered in Chicago).

2. Also, feels to me like its aged very quickly despite only being about 20 years old. Working within the original footprint really hampered it.

3. Finally, parking (and even pedestrian access)... sucks


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 AM.

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