CHICAGO | Tribune Tower Addition | 1,442 FT | 113 FLOORS

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^^

wonderful!

i owe you a beer.

I'll hold you to that! Haha.

Thanks for the positive feedback guys!
Without giving too much away, the building was very glassy with a lot of nice metal detailing I think people here will appreciate. The corners are curved and the top was lit up nicely in a very iconic way. I hope they stick to that design. We might get something completely different. We'll just have to wait and see.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yes, who can fail to be delighted by the fine-grained urbanism, studded with small shops and cafes, seen here?

You gotta love the argument "OK, so it doesn't work so well in reality, but how would it work in theory?"

I agree with you on Trump tower but I can't agree with you on Hancock. Hancock center is delightful from the street. Even on the north and south sides the sidewalks are so massive that drop off cutouts don't matter and they have 2 rows of trees with benches around them for people to sit and take a break. Each side that faces the street has at least one small shop along with entrances for the buildings other uses. Hell even it's sculptural parking ramp is a delight.

[Mr Saturn64]

When I was in Chicago, I did enjoy walking past the skyscrapers. Granted, this is from a tourist's perspective, so a lot of it was the amazement of really being at places I had seen in pictures a thousand times. That applies to Willis and Hancock especially. But my hotel was right by Aon, and I found the plaza in front of it to be very nice. I do think Hancock probably was the best major skyscraper for street interaction, even if it is a mecca for skyscraper nerds like myself.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Walking a shopping district in "the olde country" is possibly a more pleasant experience though. Certainly better for your health than the Mag Mile.

Perhaps more enojyable for you or I, but in terms of number of people who actually show up there to walk it, there is no contest. Michigan Ave is one of the most popular thouroughfares in any city anywhere on Earth. That's not because people are being forced to Red Square to watch the Soviet Army on parade, it's because people like going there for some reason.

Chicago has plenty of other streets that are just as pleasant as the "Olde Country" if that's you cup of tea. Milwaukee Ave, Clark Street, Lincoln Ave, 18th Street, and those are only the gentrified/ing ones.

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

When I was in Chicago, I did enjoy walking past the skyscrapers. Granted, this is from a tourist's perspective, so a lot of it was the amazement of really being at places I had seen in pictures a thousand times. That applies to Willis and Hancock especially. But my hotel was right by Aon, and I found the plaza in front of it to be very nice. I do think Hancock probably was the best major skyscraper for street interaction, even if it is a mecca for skyscraper nerds like myself.

The Hancock is literally the perfect building, I have yet to find any significant flaw in it's design from a function or aesthetic point of view. Also, say whatever you want about Chicago's collection of midcentury towers, but all the premium ones downtown have aged wonderfully. There's no doubt in my mind that these buildings are in much better condition and much more fully occupied than the first Chicago school was at 50-70 years of age. I mean Home Insurance and Masonic Temple were already torn down before they hit 50 years of age and that wasn't even in the post war era.

[Khantilever]

I know Paris Syndrome is a thing, but I have to say I think Mag Mile > Champs-Élysées. Not architecturally or even in terms of the streetscape, but in terms of vitality, excitement, activity and overall enjoyability.

And I’ll add to the chorus in defense of the Hancock. I had to return a charger at Best Buy there this weekend, and the plaza at the Hancock was a relief from the bustle of the street further South.

[KWillChicago]

The exterior of Hancock I believe is one of the most recognizable out there. The only negative I could think of is from the inside looking out. I couldnt imagine paying huge money for a high floor apartment and have a big ass cross beam blocking half my view. But I suppose thats part of the charm of saying you live in the hancock.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

The exterior of Hancock I believe is one of the most recognizable out there. The only negative I could think of is from the inside looking out. I couldnt imagine paying huge money for a high floor apartment and have a big ass cross beam blocking half my view. But I suppose thats part of the charm of saying you live in the hancock.

Eh, the cross beams are a feature, not a flaw. A buddy of mine lives right above the 75th floor corner where the crosses meet. He has two of them and they are awesome. The one that goes through his living area blocks maybe 10% or less of the window line. He has cushions on it and the ledge along the windows making it essentially a sofa to lay on. Totally awesome.

[Skyguy_7]

^ That's great; a sofa-beam. Function follows form.

From what I've seen in the past, buyers at JHC pay a premium for units with cross-bracing.

[bgsrand]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

The exterior of Hancock I believe is one of the most recognizable out there. The only negative I could think of is from the inside looking out. I couldnt imagine paying huge money for a high floor apartment and have a big ass cross beam blocking half my view. But I suppose thats part of the charm of saying you live in the hancock.

That's funny...I posed the same question in the Tower Verre thread. Not sure how I would feel putting down 10's of millions of dollars to have a structural element partially blocking the view. I'd probably be just fine since I have 10's of millions, but none the less.

Also, 510 W. Erie (Erie on the Park) has the same issues though on a much smaller scale. To each their own.

[maru2501]

State Street is pretty fun to walk

[wchicity]

Does anyone know when official plans are being released?

[left of center]

I think its been stated in this thread by some people that we could potentially see actual renderings by late spring/early summer, but these are mostly just assumptions based on how far along in the designing & political/permiting process this development is estimated to be in. We will probably get a glimpse at some elevations before that though, hopefully.

[JMKeynes]

Will this require pre-construction sales to proceed or are condos in Chicago just all built on spec like they are in NY?

[left of center]

While there is a condo component to this project, from my understanding it will mostly be rental units. Pre-sale requirements, if any, won't be too much of an issue.

[JMKeynes]

Thanks. Bring it on!

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by left of center

While there is a condo component to this project, from my understanding it will mostly be rental units. Pre-sale requirements, if any, won't be too much of an issue.

It's condo and hotel. 158 units/220 rooms respectively according to the tribune article.

Low unit count for a tower this height sounds like they will be pretty pricey. No clear rumblings of a hotel backing the financing like we had with Vista.

Pre-sale requirements could very much be an issue.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by jc5680

It's condo and hotel. 158 units/220 rooms respectively according to the tribune article.

Low unit count for a tower this height sounds like they will be pretty pricey. No clear rumblings of a hotel backing the financing like we had with Vista.

Pre-sale requirements could very much be an issue.

How much $/SF are the Vista units selling for?

[left of center]

Originally Posted by jc5680

It's condo and hotel. 158 units/220 rooms respectively according to the tribune article.

Low unit count for a tower this height sounds like they will be pretty pricey. No clear rumblings of a hotel backing the financing like we had with Vista.

Pre-sale requirements could very much be an issue.

Thanks for the correction!

158 units is crazy low for a tower of this height.

Some baseless conjecture: Assuming its ultra luxury (thus, high ceilings), at 12 ft/floor and subtracting 150 feet for lobby/crown/mechanical, it will roughly be 100 floors in height. That works out to under 4 units per floor if you include the hotel count with the condo units. The hotel portion will undoubtedly be denser, which would lower the condo portion to something like 2 units per floor.

This is of course imprecise since we don't know a lot of information, including things such as penthouse unit ceiling heights, the potential for multi-floor units, etc.

[aaron38]

Four units per floor isn't unreasonable for a tower like this with a small footprint. The core takes the center and the four units each get a corner. Larger units get half a floor each.

[joeg1985]

Wasn't the 158 condo units number from the conversion of the Tribune Tower itself? Not the number of units in the supertall new construction?