CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ chicago is doing great. Better than ever, in fact.

It was new york that was underpreforming until recently. Land values are an order of magnitude higher in prime manhattan. Chicago never should have been close to sniffing even half of nyc's skyline.

Now, chicago is chugging along, doing what's it's always done, throwing up giant towers when it has no real reason to be doing so and new york has finally lived up to the potential created by its extreme wealth and extreme land crunch and has entered the stratosphere.

If you can only measure chicago's skyline success against what new york is doing, then you are going to be forever wallowing in self-pity. New York has left chicago in its dust, chicago will not ever again be anywhere remotely close to NYC in the skyline department.

I think 9/11 lowered NYC's skyscraper morale for a little while, but it was only a matter of time before it came roaring back with a vengeance. As far as the NY-Chicago comparison, I find both extremely impressive on a global scale but NY is obviously a *much* bigger city with a much bigger global influence and barely any space to grow, so it's a no brainer.

Before anyone or Zapatan flips out with his height concerns, "no other change" leads me to believe it's still 844' to top of crown.

Actually I read it and didn't care, and assumed the same thing, shocking right? Why do I always get singled out?

[maru2501]

chicago is a boutique city. A larger SF without the natural beauty

[go go white sox]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I still think we are under performing ..call me spoiled but when i see NYC having like 12t o possible 15 towers over about 1000 ft or higher going up...basically about 3 times the amount of all our buildings UC at 600 ft plus i cant wonder why Chicago isn't building atleast a 1/3 whats going up in NYC..throughout its history chicago was alwasy about half ( or less) of what NYC was buiilding (buildings over 500ft)...if they had 20 buildings over 500ft being built Chicago was about 10... feel like NYC just exploded with the construction on another scale and were just doing OK relative... Thats why i get upset with super prime sites like wolf point just getting 800 ft is such a letdown..what type of prime property can warrant a super tall then?

I'm not sure what that stats are but when it comes to skyscrapers, high-rises, is there really any city in the country that's experiencing a building boom in the magnitude of Chicago, outside of NYC? Honest question

Man we must be spoiled, with so many 800+ footers under construction or in the pipeline. Any city would be in awe of such a feat.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by go go white sox

is there really any city in the country that's experiencing a building boom in the magnitude of Chicago, outside of NYC?

I know that Seattle has built a lot of highrises recently, though none of them are supertalls.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by maru2501

chicago is a boutique city. A larger SF without the natural beauty

Never heard anyone say that before.

[Ricochet48]

Originally Posted by maru2501

chicago is a boutique city. A larger SF without the natural beauty

WAT. It's easily in the top 8 GDPs of the world, how's that boutique?... This might be the dumbest thing I've heard on this forum.


In other news RE the NYC supertall boom. Yes their land values are so much more expensive, a whole other league. Also Manhattan is land constrained, while in Chicago we can almost infinitely build out. The River West project, Lincoln Yards, Riverline, the 78, etc. are all open for business. In NYC they had to figure out how to build over rails to create Hudson Yards--there's almost no corner left untouched. We still have parking lots in the Loop & RN (although many are being filled).

[go go white sox]

Originally Posted by maru2501

chicago is a boutique city. A larger SF without the natural beauty

Not sure what you mean Chicago is substantially larger than SF and ever heard of lake Michigan is consider that natural beauty.

[Halsted & Villagio]

I would add that skyline superiority is, of course, in the eye of the beholder... unless your barometer is strictly height and numbers. I saw a nationwide survey (I can't recall where) a year or so ago, and Chicago was deemed to have the superior skyline to New York based upon balance, symmetry, beauty, etc. Granted that survey could have been an out-lier but you get my point -- its largely subjective. To my knowledge Chicago has NEVER matched New York tower for tower. What it did do was build a taller tower than New York.... in fact, the tallest tower in the world. That one tower alone (rightly or wrongly) shot the Chicago skyline past New York in the eyes of many in the world. Build the tallest tower in the land again, and I submit to you that the result will likely be the same.

So, in short, if you want to compete with New York, get out of the tower for tower game... and go higher. Is that likely? The optimist in me says, "yes," .... it might be 20/30 years from now but I do believe that there will come a time when a developer will come along with the vision and financial wherewithal to pull it off.

And had it not been for the last recession..................

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

Part of it is the difference in land values, which pressure NYC buildings to go taller, all else equal. For example, one of those 1000+ towers in NYC is 111w57, which at a height of 1428 ft will have ~316000 square feet of space. Wolf Point East, which will be less than half as tall at 629 ft, will have almost exactly twice the square footage (628500). Vista is ~1200 feet tall, and has almost 5x the square footage of 111w57.

Building a supertall, superskinny tower like 111w57 is a really expensive way to get revenue-generating square footage. If you aren't space constrained like NYC, it makes a lot more financial sense to build less tall but on a larger lot. Of course I'm cherry picking a bit, but I think it's a good illustration. It's not that Chicago isn't having a building boom, it's that our building boom isn't as squeezed into narrow needle towers.

Double-check some of that data. I think WPE is somewhere between 900,000 and 1 mil sq ft.....I’ve seen height figures that are a bit higher as well...
Not that this impacts your point, obviously....

In addition to the vast difference in underlying economics, a lot of the financing behind the construction of those types of condo units in NY were essentially predicated on a continual pipeline of foreign buyers (many with questionable asset sources, to put it courteously) paying ever-higher prices....there’s a reality check incoming in that part of the market....

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by go go white sox

I'm not sure what that stats are but when it comes to skyscrapers, high-rises, is there really any city in the country that's experiencing a building boom in the magnitude of Chicago, outside of NYC?

if you're talking about towers >800', then no.

if you lower the threshold down to 500', then metro miami is currently outbuilding chicago.


500+ footers currently U/C according to SSP:

NYC - 40 (includes jersey city)
miami - 12 (includes sunny isles beach & hollywood)
chicago - 8
los angeles - 8
seattle - 5
san francisco - 4

[the urban politician]

^ Do you have comparable data about total highrise construction (12+ stories?)

Just curious--don't bother if it's too much work

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Do you have comparable data about total highrise construction (12+ stories?)

Just curious--don't bother if it's too much work

construction data for anything below 500' is generally WAY to incomplete/inconsistent to make for any kind of meaningful apples to apples comparison.

[Tom In Chicago]

In the last 20 years Chicago has built ~223 buildings 12 floors or higher (as per CTBUH data). . . that's more buildings than the entire skylines of cities like Houston, Atlanta or Dallas. . . seems to me like Chicago is doing quite well. . . and we've got infinitely better pizza. . .

. . .

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by maru2501

chicago is a boutique city. A larger SF without the natural beauty

As far as I can tell, "Boutique City" is not even an existing or recognizable term, so congratulations on creating a new word! Even though it doesn't apply to Chicago. At all.

Also, out of morbid curiosity, what do you consider "natural beauty?"

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sentinel

what do you consider "natural beauty?"

I'd answer this with some pics, but it would probably get me in trouble.....

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by sentinel

As far as I can tell, "Boutique City" is not even an existing or recognizable term, so congratulations on creating a new word! Even though it doesn't apply to Chicago. At all.

Also, out of morbid curiosity, what do you consider "natural beauty?"

Drive down 290 or 294 in the suburbs and tell me Chicago is a "botique city". If endless miles of giant warehouses l, factories, and train yards is botique I guess we are botique.


Also if the second largest CBD in the country is "botique" then my favorite botique is Target since it's smaller than Walmart....

[tjp]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Drive down 290 or 294 in the suburbs and tell me Chicago is a "botique city". If endless miles of giant warehouses l, factories, and train yards is botique I guess we are botique.

Ew, no.

[cjreisen]

Chicago must be the most active city, construction wise, with a declining population. It's amazing how so much is built, when the population of the city and state is dropping so fast.

[Daprato Rigali]

Originally Posted by cjreisen

Chicago must be the most active city, construction wise, with a declining population. It's amazing how so much is built, when the population of the city and state is dropping so fast.

The Principle of Rhythm - Everything flows out & in; everything has its tides; all things rise & fall; the pendulum swing manifests in everything. For every inhale, an exhale.

The city of Chicago will do very well in the future.

[cjreisen]

Yeah, take my words as no insult to Chicago, I love the city, and happy to see the population growing in the core. I think it's a correction that's worthwhile, as people abandon the less desirable, distant parts of the city.