CHICAGO | Beitler Telecom Tower | 2,000 FT / 610 M | NEVER BUILT

[jcchii]

if it's a plot to get one built, I have to believe it's FS.
too many years courting calatrava for that to have been fake. If the plan is for one, I think this new one is to make the neighborhood think that just one maybe wouldn't be so bad.

and again, the one with the condos and the potential HD antenna I would think means the most $$$

[Beyond 1000]

Why do people in these forums call buildings "tough" "evil" when all in all they are buildings? I don't think this tower will finish off looking like that if they go ahead with it.

Sears and Hancock were from the 70s era. I doubt royally that one will see such look again. They are fantastic looking but still from 30 to 40 odd years ago in design. If those two buildings were to be built today in Chicago, they wouldn't look like that.

Again, as I said before, either the proposed tower or Fordham will go up and maybe neither. I believe that Fordham is more pie in the sky.

[Steely Dan]

Antenna plan just a ploy, some think
October 28, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter Advertisement
Chicago Sun-Times

How real is the plan to build a 2,000-foot tower for digital broadcast antennas on the lakefront? Real estate executives said Thursday the proposal is unlikely to be realized and that it is just a tactic for squeezing rent concessions from Sears Tower.

But a developer involved in the enterprise, J. Paul Beitler, insisted the project has secure financing. Because it is essentially an antenna mast holding little besides some sky-high restaurants to draw tourists, there's no pre-leasing requirement for construction to begin.

"This is not a fairy tale,'' Beitler said. "We didn't show this to the mayor to have fun or to tease the city.''

Beitler has partnered with LR Development Co. to propose the tower for land LR controls at Peshtigo and Illinois near Navy Pier. Beitler recruited well-known architect Cesar Pelli to provide the design.

Its primary purpose would be to serve the broadcast needs of stations making a move to digital from analog programming. But executives familiar with the economics of antennas doubted the new building could financially compete with Sears or the backup site for most stations, the John Hancock Center.

One broadcast executive acknowledged the idea could be useful in negotiations with Sears Tower. Larry Wert, president and general manager of WMAQ-Channel 5, said, "An alternative broadcast site is a good thing, given the leverage opportunity and the backup opportunity.''

Wert declined to comment on the Beitler plan or Channel 5's involvement in it. Several other TV station bosses didn't return calls.

In the late 1990s, the stations floated various ideas for a freestanding site for digital antennas, including spots on Chicago's West Side and in northwest Indiana. The antennas must be higher than Sears Tower to provide clear digital signals to Chicago homes.

At the time, broadcasters said there were technical reasons why Sears Tower and the Hancock couldn't squeeze digital equipment next to the analog gear. Those technical issues disappeared or were resolved once negotiations got serious.

Sears Tower, the city's tallest building and transmission site for most Chicago TV stations, has ample space to serve broadcasters now and well into a digital future, said Barbara Carley, who manages the building as director of CB Richard Ellis Inc.

Her opinion is no surprise, but it was echoed by another executive with experience in negotiating antenna deals. "One hundred percent of the digital requirement in Chicago has been satisfied,'' he said.

The executive said Beitler might be trying to revive an old dream of adding something tall to the skyline. In the 1980s, Beitler pushed a "world's tallest building'' for the southwest corner of Madison and Wells, but falling demand for office space killed the idea.

"It's very expensive to construct the systems needed to serve the broadcasters,'' the executive said. Asked if there was substance to Beitler's plan, he replied, "I think he's puffy, frankly.''

A critical point is whether Beitler carries commitments to negotiate antenna space on behalf of Chicago's TV stations. Beitler declined to discuss his arrangement with the stations, saying he is bound by confidentiality clauses.

Insiders estimate that the antennas produce more than $10 million in annual income for Sears Tower. The slightly shorter Hancock building is believed to earn less than $2 million a year from its antennas.

Beitler said the $300 million tower has secured a construction loan from LaSalle Bank that's contingent only on the city granting zoning approval. If that comes, "we are going ahead with this tower,'' he said. "I expect to start in July.''

One TV station leader downplayed the Beitler idea, taking an "I'll believe it when I see it'' approach.

Carley said the antenna leases at Sears Tower have an average of about five years to run.

While the Hancock is the backup TV site for most TV stations, the owner of its commercial space, Shorenstein Realty Services LP, has spent heavily to offer all stations improved emergency power in the event of blackouts, said Chuck Fendrich, senior vice president at Shorenstein.

The stations shared costs with the landlord. "I would have a hard time seeing them walk away from that capital commitment,'' Fendrich said. He said the leases extend beyond 2010.

[Maldive]

* moderator edit *

new york vs. chicago acrimony belongs in a different thread at a different website. check out this Festival of Idiocy, it might be more your speed.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Antenna plan just a ploy, some think
October 28, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter Advertisement
Chicago Sun-Times

How real is the plan to build a 2,000-foot tower for digital broadcast antennas on the lakefront? Real estate executives said Thursday the proposal is unlikely to be realized and that it is just a tactic for squeezing rent concessions from Sears Tower.

But a developer involved in the enterprise, J. Paul Beitler, insisted the project has secure financing. Because it is essentially an antenna mast holding little besides some sky-high restaurants to draw tourists, there's no pre-leasing requirement for construction to begin.

"This is not a fairy tale,'' Beitler said. "We didn't show this to the mayor to have fun or to tease the city.''

Beitler has partnered with LR Development Co. to propose the tower for land LR controls at Peshtigo and Illinois near Navy Pier. Beitler recruited well-known architect Cesar Pelli to provide the design.

Its primary purpose would be to serve the broadcast needs of stations making a move to digital from analog programming. But executives familiar with the economics of antennas doubted the new building could financially compete with Sears or the backup site for most stations, the John Hancock Center.

One broadcast executive acknowledged the idea could be useful in negotiations with Sears Tower. Larry Wert, president and general manager of WMAQ-Channel 5, said, "An alternative broadcast site is a good thing, given the leverage opportunity and the backup opportunity.''

Wert declined to comment on the Beitler plan or Channel 5's involvement in it. Several other TV station bosses didn't return calls.

In the late 1990s, the stations floated various ideas for a freestanding site for digital antennas, including spots on Chicago's West Side and in northwest Indiana. The antennas must be higher than Sears Tower to provide clear digital signals to Chicago homes.

At the time, broadcasters said there were technical reasons why Sears Tower and the Hancock couldn't squeeze digital equipment next to the analog gear. Those technical issues disappeared or were resolved once negotiations got serious.

Sears Tower, the city's tallest building and transmission site for most Chicago TV stations, has ample space to serve broadcasters now and well into a digital future, said Barbara Carley, who manages the building as director of CB Richard Ellis Inc.

Her opinion is no surprise, but it was echoed by another executive with experience in negotiating antenna deals. "One hundred percent of the digital requirement in Chicago has been satisfied,'' he said.

The executive said Beitler might be trying to revive an old dream of adding something tall to the skyline. In the 1980s, Beitler pushed a "world's tallest building'' for the southwest corner of Madison and Wells, but falling demand for office space killed the idea.

"It's very expensive to construct the systems needed to serve the broadcasters,'' the executive said. Asked if there was substance to Beitler's plan, he replied, "I think he's puffy, frankly.''

A critical point is whether Beitler carries commitments to negotiate antenna space on behalf of Chicago's TV stations. Beitler declined to discuss his arrangement with the stations, saying he is bound by confidentiality clauses.

Insiders estimate that the antennas produce more than $10 million in annual income for Sears Tower. The slightly shorter Hancock building is believed to earn less than $2 million a year from its antennas.

Beitler said the $300 million tower has secured a construction loan from LaSalle Bank that's contingent only on the city granting zoning approval. If that comes, "we are going ahead with this tower,'' he said. "I expect to start in July.''

One TV station leader downplayed the Beitler idea, taking an "I'll believe it when I see it'' approach.

Carley said the antenna leases at Sears Tower have an average of about five years to run.

While the Hancock is the backup TV site for most TV stations, the owner of its commercial space, Shorenstein Realty Services LP, has spent heavily to offer all stations improved emergency power in the event of blackouts, said Chuck Fendrich, senior vice president at Shorenstein.

The stations shared costs with the landlord. "I would have a hard time seeing them walk away from that capital commitment,'' Fendrich said. He said the leases extend beyond 2010.

Is a TV tower really that foreign to Chicagoans? I get the sense that they think everything on a skyline must be occupiable building space. Am I reading this wrong, or is this really that unpopular? I don't think Chicago needs a TV tower on its skyline, but I don't see how it could destroy the skyline either, if built.

[oshkeoto]

^ Have you seen the renderings? Anything that's 2,000 feet sticks out on a skyline with nothing above 1,450 feet.

[STR]

^Correction: Nothing above 1,730 feet. We're talking less than 300 feet difference between the two boradcast platforms, I don't think that warrants a multimillion dollar tower.

[LMich]

But, are you attacking it become of it's lack of necessity, or from the view that it will destroy the skyline? There are plenty of what many saw as unneeded buildings in the history of time. If there is backing for it, and it goes through all of the necessary procedures than it deserves to be built, don't you think? If you're arguing from a design/skyline perspective, that's a whole other issue. I just seem to be getting that feeling that Chicago hates TV towers regardless of design or location? Is this a fair assessment? I mean, nobody better than a Chicagoan knows what Chicago needs, but from where are you arguing this from?

[spyguy]

http://www.crainschicago.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=18319
As Crain's Goes to Press
Oct. 29, 2005

Yours for $7 mil.: TV tower naming rights
The developers who plan to build a 2,000-foot-tall broadcast tower on the lakefront are trying to find a corporate sponsor who would pay $7 million to $10 million a year for naming rights. "That's pretty much the going rate," says Chicago developer J. Paul Beitler, who is teaming up with Chicago-based LR Development on the project at Lake Shore Drive and Illinois Street. If built, the structure would be the world's tallest free-standing broadcast tower. [Alby Gallun]

[spyguy]

I knew it was going to happen, but still. I hate this kind of thing, as it cheapens the whole building (like with stadiums, New Comiskey = US Cellular? NO!). But if there is a consistent name throughout the decades it will eventually fuse right in and we'll hardly remember that it's named after a corporation (Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, Wrigley Field, etc.).

Let's think of some names:
Chase Tower
Kraft Tower
Daley Tower

[the urban politician]

^ Playboy Tower

[StevenW]

i kinda like the tower.

[LMich]

I can see it now..."McDonalds Presents The Tall Tower." lol

[Chicago2020]

WAL-MART TOWER

[Jasonhouse]

I would think that if you guys were going to bitch about the name of a Chicago landmark, it would be the name of Soldier Field now, which is the worst name of any building that I've ever heard of.

[Marvel 33]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I know this is probably not the best architectural design ever but at the same time I don't think it looks that bad either. It is definitely a very unique structure and not something I would imagine for Chicago, however that is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is hard to form an opinion without having better renderings...at this point we don't really know what color its going to be, what kind of texture is going to have or any of the smaller details.
I really think is too early for anybody to have a solid, clear and final opinion, without knowing all the facts I just mentioned. It would be wise to wait a little longer in my opinion!

[James Bond Agent 007]

Hmm, it looks OK, but . . . it either needs to be *right next to* the Fordham Spire, or it needs to be all the way over in some other part of downtown. The way it is here, it's not quite clustered with the Fordham Spire, but it doesn't stand out on its own, either.

Maybe from some angles it'll look more clustered.

We'll see . . .

[oshkeoto]

Maybe from some angles it'll look less ugly.

But I doubt it.

[Azndragon837]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Go to Emporis for those unbuilts.

What movie is this image from? I am curious to know. Thanks!

-Andrew

[spyguy]

iRobot