CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 63

honte · #**1241** Posted **Jun 10, 2007, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ginsan2

(Especially for the 'weather' part, how does being unable to enjoy outdoor activities for 10 months amount to coming in first?)

Sorry, this is off-topic, but: Huh???? Have you tried it?

Marcu · #**1242** Posted **Jun 10, 2007, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

Random thought. Chicago's relaxed zoning in the central business district will bite it 50 years from now by failing to keep a distinct comericial district apart from residential development and subsequent political accomodations. We're being very short sighted. There will never be another comercial supertall because of this.

Who says a city's commercial district has to be super-concentrated? We're now seeing some of Chicago's biggest and most important employers (eg Kirkland Ellis and Jenner and Block) jump the river into River North. They don't seem to mind being outside the Loop. And in my opinion, it's healthier to have a balanced mix of residential, hotel, retail, and office so that entire chunks of the city aren't abandonded after 6pm like in many other cities. It's just not an optimal use of roads, mass transit, and other infrastructure to do that. And in 50 years if there is a shortage of space and the market conditions are right, we can just start taking down some of those single-story currency exchanges and drive thrus in River North for some supertall office buildngs. Hopefully even sooner.

ginsan2 · #**1243** Posted **Jun 10, 2007, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Sorry, this is off-topic, but: Huh???? Have you tried it?

Yeah. I live pretty close to Chicago, actually. We have terrible weather.

ardecila · #**1244** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 1:24 AM**

Luke, you're not seeing the big picture - there are TONS of sites downtown where new office buildings can be built. Most of them at this point would involve demolition. However, there's a nicely-sized block on Congress that has a BP, a little parking lot, and a small garage that would be ideal for a new office building.

ginsan2 · #**1245** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 2:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Luke, you're not seeing the big picture - there are TONS of sites downtown where new office buildings can be built. Most of them at this point would involve demolition. However, there's a nicely-sized block on Congress that has a BP, a little parking lot, and a small garage that would be ideal for a new office building.

I wonder, do you think they'll ever tear down the smaller, blockier skyscrapers from Chicago's past and build the sleeker, taller designs of the modern age on the sites?

Or are there already plans for such a thing? Or... Has such a thing already been done?

the urban politician · #**1246** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 3:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ginsan2

I wonder, do you think they'll ever tear down the smaller, blockier skyscrapers from Chicago's past and build the sleeker, taller designs of the modern age on the sites?

Or are there already plans for such a thing? Or... Has such a thing already been done?

That doesn't sound like something I'd ever like to see happen

ardecila · #**1247** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 4:56 AM**

It's already happening. Look at the Hamilton Partners/Lagrange project on LaSalle that's supposed to gut the New York Life building. Look at 155 North Wacker, for which we lost two handsome 5-story Chicago School loft buildings and an unimpressive but sizable 50s building. Look at the Feds' proposal for the Federal Center expansion onto State Street, where they plan to demolish a quarter-block of prime retail frontage (although the buildings are shabby).

And those are just the office projects. I'm not gonna discuss Heritage, Legacy, 215 West Washington, etc.

We will eventually get more teardowns within the Loop. The question is, what will be torn down?

Eventually...Chicago · #**1248** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 5:00 AM**

One interesting point i heard someone from hines make regarding office buildings and location.

Unlike retail and perhaps residential, where one block or even half a block can make all the difference between good location and bad location, office has become more like industrial, where the general area matters more than the specific area. For example, (and you could tell they were entering into sales pitch mode with this) 300 n lasalle is not on wacker drive, the new signature address for business. However, it is close enough that it is still equally as desirable.

I think is a trend that will continue. Residential and retail will continue to compete for the ideal properties out there, office development will just try to be close enough. I mean, in a time where most people take more than 25-30 minutes to get to work, what is another few minutes?

SamInTheLoop · #**1249** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 5:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu

Who says a city's commercial district has to be super-concentrated? We're now seeing some of Chicago's biggest and most important employers (eg Kirkland Ellis and Jenner and Block) jump the river into River North. They don't seem to mind being outside the Loop. And in my opinion, it's healthier to have a balanced mix of residential, hotel, retail, and office so that entire chunks of the city aren't abandonded after 6pm like in many other cities. It's just not an optimal use of roads, mass transit, and other infrastructure to do that. And in 50 years if there is a shortage of space and the market conditions are right, we can just start taking down some of those single-story currency exchanges and drive thrus in River North for some supertall office buildngs. Hopefully even sooner.

Agree 100%.....imo in the long-run it's much more important to create a diversity of uses across a much larger area downtown than it is to maintain a super-concentration of office space. Also, there are so many either vacant or highly underutlized or obsolete non-landmark worthy parcels in the downtown area that I doubt they'll all be spoken for during my lifetime (and I like to think of myself as fairly young!)

Mr Downtown · #**1250** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 1:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

there's a nicely-sized block on Congress that has a BP, a little parking lot, and a small garage that would be ideal for a new office building.

A residential building, maybe, but it's too far east and south for a new office building. The office buildings in that area (Manhattan, Fisher, Plymouth, and probably soon Old Colony) are being converted to residential. The driving force in office locations seems to be walking distance from Union and Ogilvie. Easy expressway access is a secondary consideration. I'm not even sure that Franklin Point can include any significant office portion, only two blocks south of Sears Tower.

Mr Roboto · #**1251** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The driving force in office locations seems to be walking distance from Union and Ogilvie. Easy expressway access is a secondary consideration.

I agree, many of the new office buildings in the last few years are on the west side of the loop. It also helps that they have tons of express buses waiting to pick people up to go to Ill Center, but most of the people walk to work from those two stations.

Anyway, I like the deconcentration of office buildings. I would like to see the loop become more of a 24 hr area, with restaurants staying open later, more foot traffic etc. The diversity in building use is good for downtown IMO.

ardecila · #**1252** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 10:49 PM**

I guess proximity to LaSalle (station) isn't good enough?

Also.. I had no idea Fisher was getting a residential conversion. I need to look into that... It's a beautiful building, I wouldn't mind living there if the price is right.

SamInTheLoop · #**1253** Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 11:03 PM**

^ Fisher was adaptive-reused into apartments at least 6 or 7 years ago...

Mr Downtown · #**1254** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I guess proximity to LaSalle (station) isn't good enough?

Alas, no. It's all about where the decision-makers (rich executives) live, not where the bulk of the employees live. And Millennium Station is even less relevant to those decisions. Another reason we should have through-routed the commuter trains in the 20s.

ginsan2 · #**1255** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 2:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

Justice Department clears CME's bid for CBOT
(Crain’s) — The Justice Department on Monday cleared the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s bid to acquire the Chicago Board of Trade, saying it was unlikely to substantially reduce competition in the futures industry.

The agency had been looking into whether the combined company’s hold over 90% of U.S. futures trading and clearing would lock out competitors or reduce innovation. Its seven-month investigation concluded that it wouldn’t.

“The Antitrust Division determined that the evidence does not indicate that either the transaction or the clearing agreement is likely to reduce competition substantially,” the Justice Department said in a statement, citing plans by the New York Stock Exchange and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. to offer products that would compete directly with the combined exchange.

The CBOT’s board of directors rejected a competing takeover proposal by Intercontinental in May, even though Intercontinental’s all-stock bid values the CBOT higher than the Merc’s does.

CBOT shareholders and members are due to vote on the Merc’s plan on July 9, and CBOT executives have been meeting with members to build support for the deal.

The Merc’s stock closed up $7.44, or 1.4%, at $557.07 on Monday. Its all-stock bid now values each CBOT share at $195, well under the Board of Trade’s $201.54 close. Intercontinental’s stock closed up $3.56, or 2.4%, at $149.19, valuing the CBOT at $212 a share.

“To get the certainty associated with a DOJ announcement is obviously a very significant milestone,” says CBOT Chief Executive Bernard Dan. “We are very happy with that relult".

Hey, thanks for posting

That was certainly a timely response to our worries over the anti-trust aspects.

honte · #**1256** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Fisher was adaptive-reused into apartments at least 6 or 7 years ago...

Yes, and it was done extremely well. ardecila, I would definitely suggest looking there. Not sure how well the interiors are holding up, but the exterior job was (and is) near the top of the game.

lalucedm · #**1257** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 3:26 AM**

It seems like we're in a weird "sweet spot" right now where the skyscrapers from the 50s and 60s aren't old enough yet to be very historic (just like the 'scrapers from the 20s were to the people in the 60s) so I'm curious how many of these "smaller, blockier towers from Chicago's past" will be demolished before that sweet spot passes and they become historic. The much stronger preservation movement we have nowadays than was present in the 60s will keep a bunch of stupid decisions from being made, I'm sure, and hopefully what should be saved will. However, it will be interesting to see what is ultimately kept and what isn't.

SamInTheLoop · #**1258** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Yes, and it was done extremely well. ardecila, I would definitely suggest looking there. Not sure how well the interiors are holding up, but the exterior job was (and is) near the top of the game.

It's great to have a company like Village Green so dedicated to their specialty (adaptive re-use of historic downtown office towers into apartments) and so competent at execution. I can't wait for their next (Randolph Tower) project to be complete...

honte · #**1259** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 4:33 AM**

^ Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lalucedm

It seems like we're in a weird "sweet spot right now where the skyscrapers from the 50s and 60s aren't old enough yet to be very historic (just like the 'scrapers from the 20s were to the people in the 60s) so I'm curious how many of these "smaller, blockier towers from Chicago's past" will be demolished before that sweet spot passes and they become historic. The much stronger preservation movement we have nowadays than was present in the 60s will keep a bunch of stupid decisions from being made, I'm sure, and hopefully what should be saved will. However, it will be interesting to see what is ultimately kept and what isn't.

Yep, in the preservation circles, they are fond of saying that the buildings aren't "ripe" yet. They even use this expression at City Hall!

Well, to borrow their phrase, you have to let your fruits ripen on the wine - not in the back of a truck - before you know if you've got a good crop.

Loopy · #**1260** Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 7:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lalucedm

It seems like we're in a weird "sweet spot" right now where the skyscrapers from the 50s and 60s aren't old enough yet to be very historic ... so I'm curious how many of these "smaller, blockier towers from Chicago's past" will be demolished before that sweet spot passes and they become historic. The much stronger preservation movement we have nowadays than was present in the 60s will keep a bunch of stupid decisions from being made, I'm sure, and hopefully what should be saved will. However, it will be interesting to see what is ultimately kept and what isn't.

One thing that will save the residential buildings of this era is the fact that they have all mostly gone condo. They must now be maintained perpetually, unless 100% of the owners agree to do otherwise, which is rather an unlikely scenario in most cases.