This is a great comment and it needs to be repeated. :cheers:

I guess if I consider this a risky gamble, it makes much more sense. But with all of the new space that was slated to come online, filling just filling that office space in a post-COVID world seems like it would be a successful rebound in and of itself. Though I shouldn't complain. I'm all for building, so fingers crossed it moves forward.

For some tenants, being the first or second tenant to sign onto a proposed tower comes with certain advantages. You have your pick of the floors in the building, unlimited flexibility to rent multiple adjacent floors in a block as needed, and you have a lot of leverage to get concessions, rent breaks or even sometimes design changes out of the developer. Sometimes naming rights are at stake, signage/branding opportunities, etc.

If a tenant is looking at a new building that's 50-60% leased and already under construction, they have a lot less leverage when they cut a deal with the developer.

Going through my archives I finally found the massing diagram showing the original 3 tower proposal by Lincoln Properties back in the late 1980s. . .



. . .

Also somewhat related. . . found an old rendering in an issue of Inland Architect from 1990 that indicated there were supposed to be small fin-like spires atop 311. . .



. . .

Would have been nice to have had three towers making use of granite cladding. Instead of what looks to be cookie-cutter blue glass

I have two concerns for this development:

First I think we had heard originally that the north twin might be built first. It would be a shame though to lose that green space (which is actually really well used in the summer, but probably would be less so in the shade of a tower to the south) while that parking lot persists for years or decades more.

Second, from a study that our office took on for the building a few years back, there is a good chance that the towers will also come with a complete reconstruction of the winter garden, which I would hate to see turned into a bland austere modern space.

Dang, that would have been awesome. Thanks for sharing! :cheers:

bummed with the uninspired design & height... could they even build a tower taller than 311 s wacker (say southern lot only) given proximity to the illuminated crown?

Why 2 towers anyway? How about ONE 1100 footer and know the thing will probably be 40% average vacancy for 3-4 years? The extra cost of construction (time wasted for a future development that may not happen at all) and digging another Hole should end up costing about the same as a single much taller building.

Construction and engineering costs skyrocket after like 1000' or something. Obviously there are a lot of factors at play but what makes you say it'd be "about the same"?

^ That's what I've heard as well, and is the reason why so many 700-to-900 footers are being proposed and constructed: apparently that's the sweet spot in terms of benefit-cost ratio. For skyscraper fans this can be disappointing, since some of the 900+ footers would be supertalls if they were just a tad taller, but most developers don't care about that, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

I suppose some of know more about construction costs than myself. Question: What would the cost be of the time digging, drilling, foundation creation, ect., and then getting to grade and then the first 8-10 floors for a 50-60 story office building?
I've heard some of these arguments for years....Just currious I guess.

Why not a 5,000' office tower where the loss factor is 54%?

Very interesting, but does the cost become prohibitive over 1000 feet if you add a crown or something of that type. You may be right though about benefit-cost ratio, maybe that is the reason some newly built or proposed New York skyscrapers are in the 50 to 60 story range but with crowns or antennas list over 1000 feet. Even so if 301 and 325 Wacker Drive twin towers had sizeable crowns atop them both, that would be awesome...

From my 3D model of Chicago.

https://images2.imgbox.com/88/b3/bFSBBOjl_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/17/7c/GFFnZ0Wm_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/a1/15/ZG9QZkG2_o.jpg



Bonus shots of the unbuilt original proposal.


https://images2.imgbox.com/57/b1/AQtkmagM_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/45/e6/9LvRukMs_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/07/d9/hnuora3a_o.jpg

For you and me it might seem like a no-brainer to spend another, say, $500k to add some vanity height, but most penny-pinching developers would disagree.

Luckily a few developers do care for vanity height and bragging rights. Look at Chicago's 6th and 7th tallest buildings, Franklin Center and 2 Prudential Plaza. Their roofs are only around 900 ft, probably to keep the benefit-cost ratio reasonable, but both have spires that go just high enough to reach supertall status.

At only 775', 301 & 321 S Wacker Drive are too far below the 984' mark to ever become supertalls -- they would look rather silly with 210' spires -- although it's still nice that they will be the tallest identical twin buildings in North America, assuming their heights aren't cut. NOTE: The "twins" at Harbour Plaza in Toronto are not identical.

Being right next to Sears/Willis, these "tallest identical twin buildings in North America" look like midgets. *SIGH*

Nice work rgarri, although I must say 311 South Wacker triplets looks a bit odd.

Not sure reaching supertall status was intentional for those buildings, I don't think most developers care about such an arbitrary number or even know it exists.

Spires are kinda lame unless they really fit the design, I'd rather just have two 775' buildings with cool roof gardens.

Well yea, Sears is huge

New proposal looks way better than 3 of 311 S Wackers. That just looks weird. Good work as always rgarri

I agree with all parts of this

yeah how much office space does white castle really need

^^lol! Lots of "Sliders"!

That's not at all what the original plan was. Pure artist embellishment. But thanks for playing.

At any rate, I'd like to see something significant go up on that site before I croak!

Ugh if only they had built the other two, would have been a perfect postmodern paradise

^ blech

One 311 s wacker is too much as it is.

Perhaps my least favorite major tower in the skyline.

Go back a page. I doubt the developer would use a non serious artist embellishment to advertise what they were planning.

311 S Wacker
 

Three 311 S Wacker's look too much like a housing project. Thanks for the modeling but one is plenty.

FWIW, I remember seeing the plan for additional two towers back then. They were diagonally connected to the two "wings" (if you will) on the existing 311 S Wacker. Not free standing. Look at the existing building design. Those offshoots on the back/sides of the building were designed with that in mind. I can't say when the massing design on the previous page came exactly. Maybe it was much earlier in the process. As you can see in that design the towers were hexagonal, for example. The final is octagonal.

According to This a zoning variance has been granted for these to reduce the parking requirements provided that construction starts by July of 2022.

Whoa! This is potentially huge news!

Saw this in the article

So they're a tunnel running under the river on Jackson??

Awesome

I'd be happy with 775 foot twin towers but it'd be awesome if they could build near supertall range or even high 800's in this spot.

Really interesting if we see anything start rising from this block next summer. Any idea on which tower/site would be developed first? Ideally the parking lot on the southwest corner of the site goes first, for aesthetic reasons...


Yup! Actually its midblock between Van Buren and Jackson (about 150 feet north of Van Buren). It was an old street car tunnel, one of three total in the Loop. The others were at Washington and Lasalle, the former which still has the tunnel portals very visible (used for underground parking garage access now).

The ripping up/paving over of the old street car network was one of the greatest travesties that has happened in this city, considering we had one of the largest networks in the world.

Wasn’t JP Morgan Chase considering this site?

That’s what I thought! I hope this become Fruition

Me too!

I hope the design has changed.

No... the site that JP Morgan Chase was looking at is 401 S. Wacker Drive ...right across street from these sites ... This is the potential mystery proposal someone brought up months back about a 80 plus story office tower or something like that..

Thanks. I thought that they were looking at a few sites, including that one.

After 5 years seems plausible.

Cool thanks, I remember hearing something about these a while back.

Here's the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street...els_in_Chicago

And here's a very nice video on YouTube about them! (with 200k views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trCkptXQc1E

The video was just added a month ago by a YouTube history channel, so nice timing.

Obviously, the crews that built BMO Tower encountered the Van Buren tunnel. Anybody know how they dealt with it? Could the tunnel still be tied back into Union Station and the all-weather passage that will eventually be completed to the Clinton Blue Line Station?

OK, I'll take two 65 floor office towers next 311 Wacker and an 80 story plus one at 401 thank you very much...

No, the ramp at LaSalle/Kinzie that leads to Carroll St is a block south of where the old tunnel portal used to sit. None of the old portals remain visible, although in most cases the structures are still there underground.

The LaSalle tunnel was severed by the Blue Line subway under Lake St, and the Van Buren Tunnel now has underground parking garages sitting at both of the old portal locations. Washington is really the only tunnel that could still be used, but it's not clear for what.

Actually I think 311 S Wacker was designed to integrate with the tunnel in the future, if the city ever decided to use it. From the lower level of the winter garden, they'd just need to add one pair of escalators going down.

Not sure but I imagine they obliterated it for the core foundation. It probably still remains in place up to the west line of Canal St so it could still be connected via elevator/stairs to the Union Station pedway.

The problem with using the old streetcar tunnel as a pedway is how unrelievedly boring it is. It's one thing to walk 1000 feet on a sidewalk, past shop windows and intervening streets, but an entirely different thing to walk that far in a lonely underground tunnel. For anyone to ever use it—except when it's below 0º—you'd have to put in a little shuttle, like the Senate Subway or Denver airport. Maybe we could put some electric scooters at both ends.

I can think of a way to make it interesting.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/uN3B..._1180043.6.jpg

Hello.

https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/...16s116117992-l

Looks like it's only 31 floors.

That listing is almost the same as this one from 2016/2017 over on LoopNet.

Chase has also been looking at the 321 S Wacker site too. I don't understand why though. Why would they want their new signature tower to be overshadowed by it's immediate neighbor and visually competing against another future tower on the other parcel?

Is there enough vacant space at Sears Tower to consolidate Chase operations? Maybe a name change as well?

. . .