HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 8:37 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,073
The transit "study" that the Crain's article cites: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1630619884
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 8:49 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
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.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Sep 3, 2021 at 9:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 8:58 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,488
^ 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.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 11:46 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
^ 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
__________________
Dump Trump 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2021, 12:08 AM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,898
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2021, 1:39 AM
gandalf612 gandalf612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Andersonville, Chicago
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2021, 3:35 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,887
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2021, 11:14 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 2:10 AM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,898
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2021, 2:36 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,402
^^^ 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...
__________________
Real Estate Bubble 2.0 in full effect:

Reddit.com/r/REbubble
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2021, 3:53 PM
twister244 twister244 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2021, 4:45 PM
Chicagoguy Chicagoguy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2021, 6:07 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoguy View Post
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
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2021, 9:37 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2021, 9:43 PM
Chisouthside Chisouthside is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Silicon Valley/Chicago
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnk View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2021, 10:29 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisouthside View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2021, 3:12 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,435
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?
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2021, 4:21 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2021, 5:25 AM
dropdeaded209's Avatar
dropdeaded209 dropdeaded209 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 441
what's wrong with Soldier Field?
__________________
Director of Starship Chicago, The Absent Column, Battleship Berlin, and Helmut Jahn: In a Flash.

"Helmut Jahn has never suffered a failure of nerve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2021, 11:01 AM
lu9 lu9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropdeaded209 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:21 AM.

     

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