CHICAGO | Marriott Marquis McCormick Place | 444' | 40 FLOORS

[SamInTheLoop]

I still think that these massive data warehouses should be actively discouraged by the city from this area. I understand it is cheapest in terms of the fiber logistics. However, the demand I think is probably easily strong enough to make them still economical to build further west (don't forget certainly land on avg. will be cheaper), and doing the extra work/figuring out all the logistical issues/spending the additional money by the developers to run the cables west.

I mean, this is 2 brand new massive warehouses (from an urban activity/streetlife point of view, let's face it - this is effectively completely 'dead' space). Why don't we just build a few more in the surrounding blocks while we're at it - and the thing is, they very well might come - once the precedent has been set, and knowing the 'heard' behavior that we all know developers for all types and sub-types of property typically exhibit. Then we have a situation where this trend is running completely counter to the broader goals of the city of really enlivening and energizing the far south loop/whole motor row/convention center area into a real live/work/play district and destination.

What's interesting is that PDNA was worried about the potential 'dead space' most of the year represented by the arena part of the McPier development. While I'm not necessarily a huge believer (there are exceptions) in the transformative positive urban impact of new sports/entertainment stadiums/arenas for cities, they're sure better then massive data centers! Yes they're of course quite necessariy economically for vibrant cities, but placement needs to be very critically selective, as they might be the ultimate 24/7 urban 'dead zones'.....

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I still think that these massive data warehouses should be actively discouraged by the city from this area. I understand it is cheapest in terms of the fiber logistics. However, the demand I think is probably easily strong enough to make them still economical to build further west (don't forget certainly land on avg. will be cheaper), and doing the extra work/figuring out all the logistical issues/spending the additional money by the developers to run the cables west.

I mean, this is 2 brand new massive warehouses (from an urban activity/streetlife point of view, let's face it - this is effectively completely 'dead' space). Why don't we just build a few more in the surrounding blocks while we're at it - and the thing is, they very well might come - once the precedent has been set, and knowing the 'heard' behavior that we all know developers for all types and sub-types of property typically exhibit. Then we have a situation where this trend is going completely against the broader goals of the city of really enlivening and energizing the far south loop/whole motor row/convention center area into a real live/work/play district and destination.

What's interesting is that PDNA was worried about the potential 'dead space' most of the year represented by the arena part of the McPier development. While I'm not necessarily a huge believer (there are exceptions) in the transformative positive urban impact of new sports/entertainment stadiums/arenas for cities, they're sure better then massive data centers! Yes they're of course quite necessariy economically for vibrant cities, but placement needs to be very critically selective, as they might be the ultimate 24/7 urban 'dead zones'.....

if they want a data warehouse, tell them to pick an upcoming development and add 20 floors for it.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Don't underestimate the demand for data centers right now. Between the cloud computing boom and the prop trading market here and the recent tech boom, there is a lot of demand for rack space. I could easily see two different data centers in the same market just as I can see 150 N Riverside and 444 W Lake competing for office space across the street.

It's good that the need for data centers is growing because in the future when transit triumphs and parking garages and podiums become completely obsolete, the only reuse I can think of for those awkwardly slanted floors would be to stick some massive processors up in them.

Remember this when it happens in 30-40 years

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

if they want a data warehouse, tell them to pick an upcoming development and add 20 floors for it.

Good idea, but see 10 S. Canal...

[Tom In Chicago]

^10 South Canal isn't a data warehouse. . . it's the legacy AT&T long-lines wire center / CHCGILCL central office. . . there is a difference. . . [/nitpick]

. . .

[Skyguy_7]

^ Right you are, though to the layman, it's a data enter. It's a pretty cool place inside, just a monstrosity on the outside. Funny, I know a Tom who manages the mechanical system upgrades in that building...

[spyguy]

This is the McHugh hotel/data center/retail project along Michigan and Cermak:

[Chi-Sky21]

I hope these both get built, the more of these that chicago can host the more it becomes a nexus for IT jobs and related companies. Let's not underestimate the impact of Chicago landing the manufacturing hub, all that data and way to transmit it has to be housed somewhere and i doubt it will be on Goose Island.

[ardecila]

Antunovich is the architect for the McHugh tower.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by spyguy

This is the McHugh hotel/data center/retail project along Michigan and Cermak:

So, west and east elevations, respectively. Those are huge ceiling heights, like 17 feet or something it would seem. I wonder if this is to allow for a vehicle (small truck) elevator? Or is it just more efficient to have really tall stacks of equipment?

Edit: After seeing ardecila's post, I'm not so psyched about this..

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^10 South Canal isn't a data warehouse. . . it's the legacy AT&T long-lines wire center / CHCGILCL central office. . . there is a difference. . . [/nitpick]

. . .

As we're talking about these structures, can Tom or harryc or someone say whether the digital revolution and Moore's Law might drastically reduce the space needed for these structures in the next, say, five to ten years? If voice traffic is transferred to IP and you need only fiber optics instead of endless numbers of copper cables, can we hope for a near future where these all fit in a single room or floor? I just want to see these faceless buildings (10 S Canal; Washington/Franklin; Dearborn/Illinois) get replaced before I die. Sooner, actually.

Btw, do Washington/Franklin and Dearborn/Illinois house the same kinds of stuff as 10 S Canal?
What about the Western Union structure at Congress/LaSalle?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Antunovich is the architect for the McHugh tower.

wtf

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by denizen467

As we're talking about these structures, can Tom or harryc or someone say whether the digital revolution and Moore's Law might drastically reduce the space needed for these structures in the next, say, five to ten years? If voice traffic is transferred to IP and you need only fiber optics instead of endless numbers of copper cables, can we hope for a near future where these all fit in a single room or floor?

That change has already happened, at least on the telco backends. In NY, it allowed the datacenter space in the Verizon building to be reduced and office space substituted. There was also a plan to convert another big ATT switch building to office, but it got snagged in the zoning process.

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Btw, do Washington/Franklin and Dearborn/Illinois house the same kinds of stuff as 10 S Canal?
What about the Western Union structure at Congress/LaSalle?

Yep, it's all the same kind of equipment in those buildings. You would not believe the amount of empty space in them. 40% vacant, minimum.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by denizen467

So, west and east elevations, respectively. Those are huge ceiling heights, like 17 feet or something it would seem. I wonder if this is to allow for a vehicle (small truck) elevator? Or is it just more efficient to have really tall stacks of equipment?

Edit: After seeing ardecila's post, I'm not so psyched about this..

Actually the tower as well has higher floor-to-floor hights than your average new construction hotel. Hotels, all else being equal, tend to be on the shorter side of new construction average residential standard....

Double vomit on the Antunovich selection. What's the deal with McHugh here? I wonder - what does it say (if we can read anything into it) that such a significant general contractor as McHugh (who has experience working with a broad range of local architecture firms) in one of the only or first quite high profile projects as principal developer selects an architect as demonstrably shitty as Antunovich for their project.......thoughts? Is it just as simple as being similar to a lot of traditional developers - wanting to take the 'safe', but design-troubled route with an architect that will presumably pliantly do as told, and not caring that much at the end of the day about design quality or innovation, etc

[pilsenarch]

I suspect, as disappointing as it is, it's solely due to Antunovich's fees are lower :/

[wrab]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Antunovich is the architect for the McHugh tower.

yikes

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by spyguy

This is the McHugh hotel/data center/retail project along Michigan and Cermak:

The tower should be shifted west and the terrace should be on the roof. It's also too wide (341' in it's N/S axis). Seeing as it's not a McPier project, there won't be a skybridge connecting this to MP. Might as well make it 800 rooms to have a combined 2,000 with the Gensler tower.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by denizen467

As we're talking about these structures, can Tom or harryc or someone say whether the digital revolution and Moore's Law might drastically reduce the space needed for these structures in the next, say, five to ten years? If voice traffic is transferred to IP and you need only fiber optics instead of endless numbers of copper cables, can we hope for a near future where these all fit in a single room or floor? I just want to see these faceless buildings (10 S Canal; Washington/Franklin; Dearborn/Illinois) get replaced before I die. Sooner, actually.

Btw, do Washington/Franklin and Dearborn/Illinois house the same kinds of stuff as 10 S Canal?
What about the Western Union structure at Congress/LaSalle?

Moved the conversation to this thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...26#post6602526

. . .

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The tower should be shifted west and the terrace should be on the roof. It's also too wide (341' in it's N/S axis). Seeing as it's not a McPier project, there won't be a skybridge connecting this to MP. Might as well make it 800 rooms to have a combined 2,000 with the Gensler tower.

Screw the skybridge. I hate those things. All it would do is turn Cermak into an attractive but deserted auto sewer. We need pedestrian activity on the street, not all-weather connections.