This is pretty much my feeling on the matter as well. I don't think there will be an increase in square footage as it doesn't serve the developer's purpose. I think the office tower has about 1.2 million sqft of office space as it is. That said if Salesforce wants a signature tower, which the current design certainly is not (IMO), we may see a design change incorporating a crown element on top of the tower which pushes it to 1000'+.

That isn't corporate advertising

food for thought:

the video screen/crown dealie on top of salesforce's HQ tower in SF appears to be about 150' tall. the building's total height is 1,070'.

add 150' to WPS's listed 950' height figure and you get 1,100'.


http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=82396859


but even if it doesn't end up besting the HQ tower in SF, if this salesforce deal for WPS goes through, then chicago will at least still have bragging rights over Indy's salesforce tower. ;)

Oooh good research

Based on what I've seen for Salesforce and their "video board" in San Francisco, neither is theirs. Maybe do research before stating things first? I mean, I agree if it's corporate advertising then hell no but if it's something like below then...yes.

• Video Link

With all due respect, I don't need to be told about research. The top of the SF tower is not something to consider comparable to a video board, but an artistic light installation. And though we cannot say for certain what might appear on an actual riverfront video board, the entire point will be to promote the brand - i.e, it is advertising

The top of the tower in SF as far as I know is referred to as a "video board" from what I've seen.

until we get more information on the exact nature, design, extent, etc. of this alleged "video board", i think it's pretty foolish for anyone to be making any hard and fast opinion statements about it.

when a journalist uses a phrase like "video board, it could mean just about anything. journalists are notorious for not having the first clue about the minutiae of these kinds of building design terms.

if it's a "video board" crown like the one atop their HQ tower in san francisco, groovy.

if it's a "video board" like those giant electronic billboards along the kennedy, booooo.

^ Agree. Journalists get a lot wrong. We should wait. And I agree - if it's something 1000 feet up and it's not really advertising then cool. If it's advertising ESPECIALLY below say 20 floors (and above it - i'm just saying especially) then hell to the no.

Wow, if what is intended is similar to the SF thing, I'm on board.

Absolute worst case scenario: block 37 video board

^ugh, that would be awful.

I agree. Sure it's fun to hypothesize but theres no proof that this will add height. The San Francisco tower utilizes the mechanical screen for the video board. There is already a large mechanical glass screen at the top of WPS according to the most recent renderings. I could see a scenario where they just retrofit the existing mechanical screen with LED's.

That would be great though if this tower was bumped up at a minimum 50ft to push it to 1,000.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ApN_...w_hres__1_.jpg

Photo credit to Curbed Chicago

^ I feel that the existing glass screen at the top which houses the tower's mechanical might be too small for a highly visible LED screen. If they are looking for something along the lines of their namesake tower in San Francisco, then it would make sense to add more height to it. I think we got a good shot at seeing WPS get to 1000' or more because of this.

Fair point. The WPE glass mechanical screen is 34ft8in but the WPS one looks to be considerably taller so who knows.

Do you have a picture of the video board at Block 37? I've never noticed it. I quite like the building...designed by SCB!

https://goo.gl/maps/hyv5psyxxHL2

Its... not great.

A waste of video board cbs was suppose to expand it across and never did smh

^ And that empty space was left exposed for like years... looked like complete crap.

Massive lost opportunity on their part.

^absolutely a waste..I remember that video board was supposed to wrap around the building and be much larger but then was downsized... that part of state street is where video boards and flashy signs should be encourage...sorry to get off topic..i guess its still a sore spot for people..lol

I remember that as well. I suppose I'm also somewhat irked by that a decade later.

Got to say I again agree with Left of Center. My suggestion to the City of Chicago, is to concede on the video board (even though it feels like a Tokyo or Times Square look to a small degree), and let's get this building a little taller (above 1000') and then let's get this going soon before the market changes and construction dollars dry up. Been through several downturns and I guess because of that I am beginning to feel that if a project is not started in the next 12 to 18 months it might be a victim to a changing economic environment. This building's look and its location is a game changer in my opinion for the skyline.

I’m feeling pretty bearish myself, but if Salesforce signs a letter of intent for 500,000 that should get financing flowing regardless of a downturn? The sooner the better tho.

#

I've recently seen the SF tower in person and the top while not a cheap video screen is still gaudy.

Whoa really? It looks so cool in videos. Is the coloring to intense?

I guess i could see a problem where 30 years from now too many towers
all have the same spectacle. Then it would just turn into light pollution. But a couple LED boards spread out would look good.

I was involved in the potential financing of what now is called 444 Lake Street right before the market dropped in 2008. The developer had a large law firm, and several other tenants pre committed to lease nearly 75% of the building but when the downturn hit, we could not get a nibble from anyone. Sort of the "herd mentality" but just saying it would be great to get Salesforce on the dotted line and get the construction financing and maybe even a forward take out on a permanent basis. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope.

I remember reading about that.

But one thing that stands out about the 2008 recession: it wasn’t your typical recession. Banks were literally about to collapse everywhere because of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Clearly we aren’t at risk of anything of this sort happening again if we hit another recession in the next couple years. Banks are still pretty careful with their lending standards, it seems, plus rising interest rates are also slowing things down.

Its already the tallest building in the city - with the crown as a display it removes it even further from the rest of the skyline which is way darker and it just sticks out too much. Esp when seen coming in via the Bay Bridge.

Well... these complaints wouldn't really apply to this building in this city. It won't be the tallest, and I'd argue we need a little more flash in that part of the skyline. The roof of 311 S Wacker is very bright and that isn't a bad thing

Yeah, after I saw the video of the SF building in San Francisco, I was on board.

Yeah i'm all for a little razzle dazzle here that can be used to celebrate all sorts of holidays and events.

I’ve been in SF twice this year and don’t find the building, including its top, gaudy at all. Just a matter of personal taste whether one takes issue with the aesthetic appearance of the building. I quite like it.

While WPS will be tall, it won't dominate the skylike like SF Tower in San Francisco does. Chicago's skyline has too many peaks and is simply much larger and beefier. If anything, WPS's LED crown would bookend the north end of the Loop proper skyline, with the bright white 311 S Wacker crown holding down the southern end. It would fit in pretty well, IMHO.


The fact that this building will be at the confluence of the river, making it even more visible from street level, is definitely a plus that the developers no doubt should consider taking advantage of.

I just hope it happens :cheers:

Exactly, it's okay to have a little flair and pizzazz from time to time ;)

I still can't believe the Salesforce news on this. I doubt Rahm will give a rats ass about granting them everything they want since he's not running for reelection.

Man i hope not. The city has the upper hand here.

Also, don't count your chickens just yet on these jobs. The EDGE program is deeply flawed, mostly because the oversight is so weak. Indeed, there's are no regular evaluations to make sure companies keep their promises. Thankfully, the Tribune did a big study on this to show how the program is really fleecing taxpayers.

"In the first comprehensive analysis of 783 EDGE agreements, the Chicago Tribune found that two of every three businesses that completed the incentive program failed to maintain the number of employees they agreed to retain or hire.

State officials can't say how many jobs have been created through the job program; nor can they say how many jobs EDGE companies have eliminated. The Tribune, however, found that 79 current or former EDGE recipients have reported eliminating 23,369 jobs through layoffs and closures since entering the program.

...

But the Tribune's analysis suggests that tax credits often do little to help companies expand or create sustainable jobs. A pattern of deals emerges in which businesses lobbied for maximum rewards and minimum requirements — and the state said yes."

^^^ I agree with you on the first part, the city has the upper hand here. However, these jobs are not happening because of some tax credit whether SF gets one or not. SF is growing rapidly and needs to find more sources of labor and San Fran just can't accommodate all these FAANGS businesses at once. As our resident city bookie pointed out to me in a PM, Salesforce's cloud revenue has nearly doubled since 2015. I'm not at all worried about whether these jobs will materialize if Salesforce signs a lease here.

You're right that Salesforce will probably keep growing. I just don't trust companies to police themselves. They might decide to move a thousand jobs to Atlanta at some point. You never know how their needs could change. If EDGE had some real teeth and accountability, I would be more supportive of tax abatements.

^ Well, this wouldn't be EDGE, it would be property tax relief.

If I were Mayor of Chicago, and I would be a kick ass one, I would put it in clear writing that every year a headcount of actively salaried local SF staff needs to be provided prior to issuing a property tax break. Or, it can be on a per capita basis.

Not enough headcount? Tax bill goes up.

After all, what the hell do we employ all those loafers at the offices of the Cook County Treasurer & Assessor (2 different offices! :duh ) for? They obviously don't answer the phone when you call, so give them some work to do

Eh, pretty sure EDGE is big component per someone else's comment and per that article.

Sounds like the only loafers here are you and me on this forum all day when we should be working. :cool:

EDGE is a State tax relief program (income tax relief?), whereas property taxes are local. I'm no expert but that was my understanding.

And yes, we're both loafers... ;) believe it or not I'm at work (and even busy) as I post this

Same, i'm fielding all sorts of Slack conversations and worried i'm going to type something about skyscrapers...

Ardecilia is the expert on this tax stuff i believe, but you might be right.

Just in, looks like Rahm is doing what needs to be done to bring Salesforce to Wolf Point South:

Emanuel dangles a signage deal to seal Salesforce tower and its 5,000 new jobs

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-...-5000-new-jobs

The article referred to the video board in question as "plaza level". If that's accurate we can say goodbye to the LED crown video board.

Nice! :)

The Crains article has been update. The screen will now be inside the building and a deal is in the process of being signed.

An interesting paragraph from the article:
“In another tweak, signage rights would be provided not just to companies that occupy at least 51 percent of a building’s leasable space as in current law but to those that lease at least 350,000 sq. ft of space in a building or employ more than 1,000 employees there. Officials say the current threshold is largely unattainable for tenants of the city’s largest office towers, some of which have more than 1 million square feet of leasable space.”

Never knew what the regulations were. I’m always proud to see building signage; n indication to me that the city is flourishing economically.

Though I will always resent Motorola for replacing “Stanta Fe”.

Trib is saying "likely to be about 800 feet (about 60 stories) tall."

BOOOOOO!