CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Your rebuttal is incoherent IMO. Immediately prior you pointed out that the developer was seeking a monumental building (hence the financials are less important). You'll find a similar drive towards monumentality for the two most visible supertalls outside of Manhattan, CTC and Salesforce.

If you think back to supertalls built outside of the two major demands I identified -- market or impulse to monumentality -- there are two outstanding examples of speculative construction: the Empire State Building, which didn't turn a profit until the 1950s (!!), and the World Trade Center, which was developed by PATH and didn't really need to turn a profit to be financially justified. Every other example I can think of -- CTC, Salesforce, Hancock, Sears Tower, 30 HY, and so on -- is either an expression of its main tenants' desire for monumentality or -- as with those condo supertalls -- able to financially justify itself by offering what you or I would generally consider inordinately expensive product.

??? You do realize your example of the ESB is hilarious, right? Your rebuttal to my rebuttal makes less sense than your first statement. The ESB took 20 years to turn a profit because of two little snags called the Great Depression and World War II.

Also, developers don't built buildings over 1,000' solely for 'monumentality', they build to turn a profit. Real estate developers, whether commercial or residential, would not have any success securing construction loans from any funding source unless they are able to provide concrete evidence that there is demand for their project and they would be able to guarantee that the lender would be able to get their money back with interest. Comparative market analysis works for both single family homes as well as 50 story commercial buildings, so no prudent developer would be able to build anything without first doing their research...and there are plenty of indicators right now that show the Chicago real estate market is in the midst of a big boom: there is currently one large residential and hotel project under construction that is over 1,100', with another (Wolf Point South) looming large, as well as the former Spire site owned by Related Midwest, which has yet to be unveiled.

Additionally, the primary tenant leasing space in a building like Salesforce, the Hancock or the Sear Tower typically doesn't have a say on how tall a building is, UNLESS they are part of the development team and providing funding (not just naming rights). And even then, a large tenant may only agree to take over 30% of the total leasable, for example (maybe 60%, maybe 20%, point is, it can vary wildly). Monumentality is created by the architect, who is hired by the developer, who is using a monumental design to attract tentants. Tenants do not approach developers asking for them to create an iconic design just for the hell of it. The CTC is an outlier, because they are developing jointly with Liberty Property Trust, and even then, Comcast is not occupying the entire building, there is a luxury hotel in there as well.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by bcp

you do realize that private developers in china are not really private developers... most are state-owned (majority ownership in the partnership, not just state-sponsored) enterprises that include massive subsidies from tax dollars. it's really difficult to compare to US risk / financing / height outcomes.

and the chinese gov't provides most of the low interest loans...

and the chinese gov't collects a 40% fee on the value of the land from the developer - so as the debt provider, majority share holder, and fee collector they are ALL for building tall (plus it looks shiny and new compared to the wesT)


related to other comments above... can't speak for all, but as a former developer, i can tell you that few developers gives a rat's behind about height - if it pencils out, awesome...if not, 4 stories with 40% margins all day long

I didn't realize the state was so heavily invested in real estate in China, though I'm not at all surprised. Even so, the Chinese government is probably interested in making a return on that investment. So I still question some of the statements from earlier about what is required to put up a supertall.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Your rebuttal is incoherent IMO. Immediately prior you pointed out that the developer was seeking a monumental building (hence the financials are less important). You'll find a similar drive towards monumentality for the two most visible supertalls outside of Manhattan, CTC and Salesforce.

If you think back to supertalls built outside of the two major demands I identified -- market or impulse to monumentality -- there are two outstanding examples of speculative construction: the Empire State Building, which didn't turn a profit until the 1950s (!!), and the World Trade Center, which was developed by PATH and didn't really need to turn a profit to be financially justified. Every other example I can think of -- CTC, Salesforce, Hancock, Sears Tower, 30 HY, and so on -- is either an expression of its main tenants' desire for monumentality or -- as with those condo supertalls -- able to financially justify itself by offering what you or I would generally consider inordinately expensive product.

I appreciate all you guys dealing with this poster.... but he is obviously a troll. He knows nothing about Chicago -- its place in history -- its place in business -- its place in the world.

We have 7 supertalls with an 8th supertall under construction. Obviously getting them built in Chicago is the not the insurmountable task this poster would have us believe. Also, the troll would be mindful to remember that this is the historical home of the skyscraper. We built the very first one in history and some/many historians write that Chicago was the very first "skyscraper city" in the world.

Chicago has a metro population of close to 10 million people. We have been #1 for corporate relocation's in the United States for the 3rd year in a row, our GDP is strong, we have financial markets/stock exchange, we have a white hot inner core that bustling with growth, our real estate values allow for cost effective construction, etc., etc. In other words, we have all the things that attract and sustain supertall growth. Moreover, we have one of the most architecturally significant skylines in the world. Architects and developers will ALWAYS be excited to put their signature on our skyline.

For whatever reason it is now vague to beat up on Chicago. But I surmise and suspect that what is really going on is cities want to unseat Chicago... they want to be Chicago... they want to beat us down so they can go up. They partly do this by attempting to work on the psyche of Chicagoans... trying to make us feel like we live in an Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, or a place like that. Like poor us... outside of Manhattan, no hope for us.... no soup for us!... nothing good for us. They want to lower our expectation level so that our achievement level is lowered.

Contrary to what this troll poster might want to believe, this is NO Houston, Atlanta, Denver, etc. Chicago has dealt with the haters for over a century and they have not stopped us. Supertalls are no pipe dream for us. Chicago builds supertalls. Period. Like the expectation of harsh winters and wonderful summers - we expect supertalls. We get them and we expect them.

.

[230Roberto]

^^^
Well Stated, sometimes I feel like people are jealous in forums. Considering One Chicago Square, Wolf Point South, And whats cooking up in 400 LSD, I would not be surprised if we have a couple more supertalls under construction over the next 3 years, maybe even a megatall.

[harryc]

Nov 29

[left of center]

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

^^^
Well Stated, sometimes I feel like people are jealous in forums. Considering One Chicago Square, Wold Point South, And whats cooking up in 400 LSD, I would not be surprised if we have a couple more supertalls under construction over the next 3 years, maybe even a megatall.

Hopefully this red hot real estate market holds out long enough to see those projects through this cycle.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by harryc

Nov 29

The top of that thing looks simply hideous

[KWillChicago]

Are Kane and Toews still battling over the No. 9 penthouse with K.G.?

[Bombardier]

^KG will own the penthouse. He was the reason for the height increase to the building that took place during construction and the custom amenities built into the penthouse such as the pool, metal plating between his unit and the floors below, and custom bike rack for his bicycles.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Bombardier

^KG will own the penthouse. He was the reason for the height increase to the building that took place during construction and the custom amenities built into the penthouse such as the pool, metal plating between his unit and the floors below, and custom bike rack for his bicycles.

Wow. It pays to be rich.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Bombardier

^KG will own the penthouse. He was the reason for the height increase to the building that took place during construction and the custom amenities built into the penthouse such as the pool, metal plating between his unit and the floors below, and custom bike rack for his bicycles.

Metal plating?

[left of center]

Originally Posted by JK47

Metal plating?

Maybe for soundproofing purposes?

[Bombardier]

Originally Posted by left of center

Maybe for soundproofing purposes?

I think more for shielding WIFI... not entirely sure though...

[10023]

Originally Posted by Bombardier

I think more for shielding WIFI... not entirely sure though...

This, and other forms of electromagnetic interference or surveillance. Metal wouldn't even be the best material for soundproofing.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Really happy about Lincoln Commons. Since Children’s moved, there has been such a void in that area. The development with retail, restaurants, and bars will really add to the DePaul campus, too. Also, as much as I like the height of new projects, the main towers are appropriately scaled for the neighborhood.

[harryc]

Nov 28



Dec 5

[the urban politician]

^ That ground level looks perfect for an Apple or similar-type tech store

[harryc]

Dec 5

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by 10023

This, and other forms of electromagnetic interference or surveillance. Metal wouldn't even be the best material for soundproofing.

soundproofing is pretty much 'the denser the material the better'

my guess is he wants it for security purposes? Dude has a lot of very pricey art now

[KWillChicago]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

soundproofing is pretty much 'the denser the material the better'

my guess is he wants it for security purposes? Dude has a lot of very pricey art now

Is a $93 million painting considered pricey? Haha. No worries, he keeps all his original pieces in a vault in the south loop and in the basement of the art institute.