CHICAGO | 110 N Wacker | 817 FT | 56 FLOORS - Page 8

Steely Dan · #**141** Posted **Jan 20, 2017, 2:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

Why don't they ever build to the lot line anymore? Makes it hard to have retail, which is essential for street life (they need to start requiring ground floor retail in the West Loop, for instance).

this building would be built to the lot lines on the south and east property lines.

the west side of the site is the river where there will be a city mandated river walk, but the upper levels will extend over the river walk out to the river's edge with a nifty serrated edge.

the only side not built to the lot line is the north, where there is a small public plaza, probably mandated by pander-hack reilly.

check out the ground floor and upper level plans. i believe orange is retail space on the ground floor plan:

LouisVanDerWright · #**142** Posted **Jan 20, 2017, 2:52 PM**

Brilliant floor plan from a leasing perspective, 15 corner offices per floor. 11 of which have direct river views. Law firm crack right there.

woodrow · #**143** Posted **Jan 20, 2017, 4:22 PM**

^^Not so much anymore. The trend now for large law firms is smaller offices, either one or two sizes fit all. More glass walls, more communal gathering and working spaces.

Don't get me wrong, this project will definitely be pitched to the big law firms, but the corner office perk is not as big a draw as it used to be. Becomes a headache for the firm leadership and designers.

BVictor1 · #**144** Posted **Jan 30, 2017, 5:03 PM**

From the City of Chicago Planning & Development
C/O (http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...-north-wacker/)

KWILLSKYLINE · #**145** Posted **Jan 30, 2017, 11:28 PM**

Nice work BVic!!!

TallBob · #**146** Posted **Jan 30, 2017, 11:57 PM**

1.4 million sq. ft. at only 52 floors....Massive!

Rocket49 · #**147** Posted **Jan 31, 2017, 12:26 AM**

Looking at the drawings, I'm a bit confused by what the planned height of the building is.

There is quite a bit of detailed info in the drawings. But when it comes to height, the drawings say "Overall building height up to 800'-0"

Do the drawings indicate a building that's planned to be 800' high?

Or do the drawings indicate a building planned to be say 780' high but whose height could increase provided it doesn't exceed 800'

LouisVanDerWright · #**148** Posted **Jan 31, 2017, 2:19 AM**

It probably just means that they don't know the exact final height yet because they probably don't have full engineering drawings yet. Either that or perhaps they are considering dropping the ceiling heights to save a few bucks.

Ned.B · #**149** Posted **Jan 31, 2017, 1:36 PM**

Planned Development drawings are legally binding, and must go through an amendment process if anything significant changes. So that language may have been used so that no changes have to be made to the PD if the final building is 795 (like where 150 N Riverside was shortened 6 feet in value engineering).

Rocket49 · #**150** Posted **Jan 31, 2017, 4:24 PM**

Very interesting. Thanks for the info, guys.

Since it sounds like the building may lose a couple feet to "value engineerining", I'm a bit disappointed the initial plan wasn't for say 810 feet. To my ear an "eight hundred and ..." foot tall building sounds a bit more impressive than a "seven hundred and ...." foot tall building

TallBob · #**151** Posted **Feb 1, 2017, 5:49 AM**

^^^ I can agree with that also!

BuildThemTaller · #**152** Posted **Feb 1, 2017, 2:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket49

Very interesting. Thanks for the info, guys.

Since it sounds like the building may lose a couple feet to "value engineerining", I'm a bit disappointed the initial plan wasn't for say 810 feet. To my ear an "eight hundred and ..." foot tall building sounds a bit more impressive than a "seven hundred and ...." foot tall building

What if you think of it as a 242.3 meter building instead of a 243.8 meter building? It matters not. The impact on the skyline will be the same give or take a few feet or meters.

Rocket49 · #**153** Posted **Feb 1, 2017, 2:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

What if you think of it as a 242.3 meter building instead of a 243.8 meter building? It matters not. The impact on the skyline will be the same give or take a few feet or meters.

Very true from a skyline perspective. But from a bragging rights perspective it's nice to surpass a threshold rather than come up a bit short.

A number of people seem to care about whether a building is "supertall" or not.

And if I were a developer and was constructing a building about 70 stories high, I'd like it to see it a bit above 300 meters and called a "supertall", rather than build something that ends up being 299 meters tall.

rgolch · #**154** Posted **Feb 2, 2017, 10:03 PM**

I don't believe this building is on the proposal list on pg1 of the highrise projects thread.

BVictor1 · #**155** Posted **Feb 3, 2017, 1:12 AM**

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...w-chicago-home

February 02, 2017
Could this be Bank of America's new Chicago home?
By RYAN ORI

Quote:

Bank of America is eyeing a potential lease of more than 500,000 square feet in downtown Chicago, with a Wacker Drive development along the Chicago River believed to be a top contender to land the deal.

The bank is in talks for space in a big office tower proposed for 110 N. Wacker Drive, according to real estate sources. That's where mall owner GGP's low-slung headquarters building now stands.

But two other locations also appear to be in the running: a proposed development on Franklin Street, and Willis Tower.

Sources say developers Howard Hughes and Riverside Investment & Development are in advanced talks with Bank of America to anchor a more than 50-story office tower they're proposing on the GGP site. That redevelopment would spell the end for the gray GGP building, a squat structure that is eye-catching because it is surrounded by office high-rises.

BVictor1 · #**156** Posted **Feb 4, 2017, 2:51 AM**

The renderings don't seem to be high-res.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20%281%29.pdf

Randomguy34 · #**157** Posted **Feb 27, 2017, 4:03 AM**

Next month's plan commission agenda has 110 N. Wacker being the only highrise (although several +80' buildings are listed), but holy crap the FAR 110 N. Wacker is seeking is 17.81 added on top of the DC-16 zoning, bringing the total FAR to a whopping 33.81. To give an idea of how much that is, the Chicago Spire sought about 25 FAR. That will be a lot of money added into the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund:
https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...017_Agenda.pdf