CHICAGO | Tribune Tower Addition | 1,442 FT | 113 FLOORS - Page 70

HomrQT · #**1381** Posted **May 20, 2020, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

All depends on the final height of 270 Park.

270 Park is one I've been waiting for. 111 West 57th, One Vanderbilt, 9 Dekalb, I am in love with a lot of the new stuff NY is putting up. I really wish this building would have reflected more of the gothic or deco features of the Tribune tower like some of those buildings managed to do.

ardecila · #**1382** Posted **May 20, 2020, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

This number is easily sourced if you cared to spend like 30 seconds looking into it. But sure, it’s a reporters fault.

The fact that "Total Development Cost" is capitalized makes me think this is a calculated number for government housing purposes, and not the true overall project cost. I would not expect construction costs for this building to be substantially cheaper than other, similar buildings in Chicago or New York.

bgbarker · #**1383** Posted **May 20, 2020, 4:25 PM**

I feel like Tribune East should be listed as 1,442ft. That would mean this height is measured from the lowest entrance (Lower Illinois St.). I drove past this future construction area last week, and was quite impressed by how much height difference there is between Lower Illinois and the upper streets. I would estimate at least 20ft. (hence the 1,422ft vs 1,442ft numbers)

Zapatan · #**1384** Posted **May 20, 2020, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgbarker

I feel like Tribune East should be listed as 1,442ft. That would mean this height is measured from the lowest entrance (Lower Illinois St.). I drove past this future construction area last week, and was quite impressed by how much height difference there is between Lower Illinois and the upper streets. I would estimate at least 20ft. (hence the 1,422ft vs 1,442ft numbers)

Probably

I still for the life of me can't understand why they don't just build the tallest building in Chicago, they must be doing it on purpose.

CrazyCres · #**1385** Posted **May 20, 2020, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I still for the life of me can't understand why they don't just build the tallest building in Chicago, they must be doing it on purpose.

Maybe they'll ask for more floors during or before construction like BMO tower.

petey2428 · #**1386** Posted **May 20, 2020, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Probably

I still for the life of me can't understand why they don't just build the tallest building in Chicago, they must be doing it on purpose.

This building is smartly flying relatively below the radar, and I don't think most people really recognize that this is going to be almost as tall as the Willis/Sears. Imagine the scrutiny this building would get from literally everyone in the city if this building is going to displace the iconic Sears Tower as the tallest building in Chicago.

Zapatan · #**1387** Posted **May 20, 2020, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by petey2428

This building is smartly flying relatively below the radar, and I don't think most people really recognize that this is going to be almost as tall as the Willis/Sears. Imagine the scrutiny this building would get from literally everyone in the city if this building is going to displace the iconic Sears Tower as the tallest building in Chicago.

Yea that could be their plan, not uncommon for new WTBs to not announce it at first

jc5680 · #**1388** Posted **May 20, 2020, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

The fact that "Total Development Cost" is capitalized makes me think this is a calculated number for government housing purposes, and not the true overall project cost. I would not expect construction costs for this building to be substantially cheaper than other, similar buildings in Chicago or New York.

Just how accurate are these numbers, generally? A lot of the proposal process is essentially marketing. I sort of assume any big round number is (necessarily) ballpark and likely is nudged up or down to serve certain strategic rationale(s). $700 does seem kind of low to me, but I also don't take that number all that literally.

Vista was quoted as being $1B. It's a big round number that also happens to potentially add to the prestige of a building trying to move $25M properties. Their construction loan was only $740M — even if that isn't all the capital on the books the proposal number still seems a little juiced.

Basically, could we actually be comparing buildings that are cost more like $740M and $900M? Costs start to sound less out of line if so.

chris08876 · #**1389** Posted **May 20, 2020, 6:30 PM**

Possibly some cheaper materials are being used on the interior. Although we really can't compare NY Construction Costs/Land Costs to Chicago. Its natural that it would be lower.

Or possibly they have the projection based on a tight time-table, that is efficient, and reduces costs. Mismanagement of projects can swell costs of projects.

Either way, who cares if its cheap to build, maybe its a good thing. We wouldn't want this being $2B+ and having money issues.

The idea that it looks like it will rise is a positive! The rest is just semantics.

BuildThemTaller · #**1390** Posted **May 20, 2020, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

The fact that "Total Development Cost" is capitalized makes me think this is a calculated number for government housing purposes, and not the true overall project cost. I would not expect construction costs for this building to be substantially cheaper than other, similar buildings in Chicago or New York.

Is it possible that the figure does not include land acquisition costs and demolition? I wonder if the purchase of Tribune Tower and conversion into residential was excluded as that's a different project.

Skyguy_7 · #**1391** Posted **May 20, 2020, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Love it! Best tower that will rise in many years.

This means a lot coming from a relative "New Yorker" like yourself! I still would prefer 9 DeKalb to rise here in lieu of the current design. As HomrQT mentioned, more of a Gothic approach would have been fantastic.

chris08876 · #**1392** Posted **May 20, 2020, 7:06 PM**

I remember the Waldorf-Astoria super tall you guys once had, something like 1,265', and resembled the Shanghai WTC without the trapezoidal hole. I wanted that to rise, shame it never came to fruition.

But this is a solid addition for the city (Tribune). Vista's a cool looking tower, but this one has more of an elegance to it, IMO. Its not underwhelming, and goes the extra step (400 N Lake Shore should take a cue, and go bolder, seems underwhelming IMO for what the design can truly yield).

Good that the Walter Burnett fella likes it. Brendan Reilly sucks on a side note, from what I've learned about him recently, he is a hack.

dweeprise · #**1393** Posted **May 20, 2020, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

I remember the Waldorf-Astoria super tall you guys once had, something like 1,265', and resembled the Shanghai WTC without the trapezoidal hole. I wanted that to rise, shame it never came to fruition.

But this is a solid addition for the city (Tribune). Vista's a cool looking tower, but this one has more of an elegance to it, IMO. Its not underwhelming, and goes the extra step (400 N Lake Shore should take a cue, and go bolder, seems underwhelming IMO for what the design can truly yield).

400 NLSD wanted to go bolder but then Alderman Reilly let everyone know who's boss.

Zapatan · #**1394** Posted **May 20, 2020, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

But this is a solid addition for the city (Tribune). Vista's a cool looking tower, but this one has more of an elegance to it, IMO. Its not underwhelming, and goes the extra step (400 N Lake Shore should take a cue, and go bolder, seems underwhelming IMO for what the design can truly yield).

Agreed, this'll probably be the most beautiful 400+ meter building in the USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by dweeprise

400 NLSD wanted to go bolder but then Alderman Reilly let everyone know who's boss.

Yea, and sorry if this is slightly OT but does he have a say in the second NEMA tower or Parcel I? I hope he doesn't ruin more potential 1000 footers.

dweeprise · #**1395** Posted **May 20, 2020, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Agreed, this'll probably be the most beautiful 400+ meter building in the USA

Yea, and sorry if this is slightly OT but does he have a say in the second NEMA tower or Parcel I? I hope he doesn't ruin more potential 1000 footers.

Where is the second NEMA supposed to go? I haven't heard anything about it. But if it goes immediately adjacent to the west of the first tower, then that's the 3rd Ward and Alderman Pat Dowell's ward. I have no idea how difficult she is with new towers. Parcel I is still Reilly though.

Chicagolover88 · #**1396** Posted **May 21, 2020, 2:00 AM**

Crain's chicago business said the city council approved the building

CrazyCres · #**1397** Posted **May 21, 2020, 2:53 AM**

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...second-tallest

They DID

Donnie77 · #**1398** Posted **May 27, 2020, 6:56 PM**

better late than never i guess

https://www.ctbuh.org/news/plans-app...second-tallest

HomrQT · #**1399** Posted **May 27, 2020, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie77

better late than never i guess

https://www.ctbuh.org/news/plans-app...second-tallest

Quote:

The 1,422-foot (433.4-meter) glass-and-steel building would overtake Trump Tower as the city’s second-tallest skyscraper, and would be the third tallest building in the United States.

That's not right, is it? New York should have three buildings taller than it, and then there's the Sears Tower. So it would be 5th tallest in the US?

Zapatan · #**1400** Posted **May 27, 2020, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

That's not right, is it? New York should have three buildings taller than it, and then there's the Sears Tower. So it would be 5th tallest in the US?

A lot of people who write articles have no idea what they're talking about, take it with a grain of salt