Yeah, it's a weird time. If you walk around downtown, you would never think office vacancy rates are in the crapper. It's good for residential/hotel mixed use proposals. I find this news especially good considering how bad some other CBDs across the country are doing.

I went to the office on Monday - first time anywhere since right before COVID in 2020. I thought it would be a ghost town and my train to and from work would be empty. Nope - it was actually still pretty active outside and the trains were pretty full LOL

Who would imagine?

lol!

nothing could be more exciting

I agree the trains do seem full at rush hours, but I think the CTA is just running fewer trains.

The other thing that could be happening is companies reducing their footprint while more people come in. I doubt anyone is coming in 4/5 days a week, so you have folks coming in probably using smaller areas than they did before.

Then again, maybe the stats on RTO are lagging. Time will tell.

Some of us do.

Not everyone is a screen-gazing desk-jockey office worker.

And even then, while my office job could theoretically be hybrid, company policy is 100% in-office.

In the words of my old school boomer boss "working from home? What a complete crock of shit! They should just call it what it really is, people being lazy and NOT working from home."

:D

Some of you do, but I think you are not the majority. Downtown seems busier than I have seen since pre-Covid, yet office vacancy remains very high:

https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2023...rd-high-again/

This says foot traffic has recovered, but people are still either:
1 - Working from home
2 - Only coming in a couple / few days a week.

It's also possible some of the foot traffic we see are people just taking a break from work to go to lunch with their friends, or come down after work to enjoy the city, etc, etc.

Overall, we are in a very good scenario (office issue aside). I'm super happy to see the trains packed again, hotels filling up, and people all over the sidewalks. The office situation will resolve itself eventually through attrition, and some space being converted to residential.

Among pure office workers, yes, 5 days/week mandatory in-office is likely the minority.

But you said you doubted that anyone heads in to work 5 days/week.

Plenty of office workers do just that, not too mention the millions upon millions of Americans who don't have an office job.

Fair enough, but I was just highlighting the overall trend in RTO. The powers that be have been pushing it for months on end, but it just isn't happening. Yes, a minority of people who work in the CBD as an office worker are coming in 4/5 days a week. However, most people are doing either a hybrid approach, or staying remote.

Anyways, the point is that downtown is healthy again, even in the face of office headwinds, which is a very very good trend for the city.

- this tower looks not bad... but it doesn´t fit well in this historical neighborhood... you have this beautiful 1920er old michigan avenue buildings... and then a big round glass building... just awful

- doesnt fit in chicago... not boxy enough

- it would fit well in miami or los angeles

- if i was a city council... i would vote against this building design in this historical neighborhood... chicago must preserve its old michigan avenue skyline at all costs...

1.) Well, the tower is nearly complete so not sure what you think can be done at this point.

2.) While I understand your concerns about protecting the historic nature along south Michigan Ave, I think there are always opportunities to blend historic architecture with new projects, which is very common in older European cities. Many cities such as Vienna, Munich, London, Paris, Milan, etc, have similar mixing of old and new styles.

3.) Chicago architecture is not just defined by 'boxy' structures as you describe them. There are many buildings from the early 20th century in Chicago and even in the mid-20th century during the height of the International style that defied that trend and became iconic for their lack of 'boxiness' (Marina City, River City condos, the old Prentiss hospital...or maybe it was just projects Bertrand Goldberg?).
Any global city like Chicago, that has a rich and varied architectural city can and should have a variety of design forms.

- you doesnt understand quite my point

- my point is... this old michigan avenue skyline is chicago... if you see a picture of this street... you know instantly it is chicago... if you erase the michigan avenue buildings, the sears tower and the john hancock building... chicago would be not chicago anymore... you must protect this buildings forever... like empire state building, chrysler building or woolworth building in new york... you must protect them at any cost

- look this two new big glass buildings in the front destroying the old skyline... they standing in the front row... if they would stand behind the old buildings or two blocks behind... it would look 10 thousand times better... it would be a nice contrast...

- you had old 1920 buildings in front row... then younger bigger buildings behind... and the sears tower featuring a lot of 200 meter buildings in the back... one of the most beautiful skyline in the world... a very nice contrast...

- now if destroy all old buildings in the front row and just build tall glass buildings instead... you will destroy this unique skyline forever... it will be just a another city with a big skyline

i mean this...

https://img.kleinanzeigen.de/api/v1/...?rule=$_57.JPG

https://img.kleinanzeigen.de/api/v1/...?rule=$_57.JPG

https://img.kleinanzeigen.de/api/v1/...?rule=$_57.JPG

https://img.kleinanzeigen.de/api/v1/...?rule=$_57.JPG

old historical buildings in the front... and newer taller buildings in the back... nice contrast

You don't seem to understand the fact that no on "erasing" anything.

The old buildings you are referring to are Historic Michigan Boulevard District and are protected. The new glassy towers at 1000 and 808 S. Michigan replaced a vacant parking lot and a POS garage, respectively.

You can't blame developers for developing vacant or severely underdeveloped parcels that are available to them, especially when the new buildings fully comply with the guidelines of the Historic Michigan Boulevard District.

South Michigan Ave has mostly old buildings north of Essex on the Park, and mostly new buildings south of (and including) Essex on the Park. 1000M fits into this scheme very nicely, and complements NEMA et al. well. I agree that those old buildings need to be protected, but they are not at risk of being replaced, so please calm down!

- i know that the old buildings are protectet... i know this

- but there is a big difference ... between building a big glass building in the the front row of historical buildings or behind it...

- if i was a city council, i would prohibit big glass skyscrapers in the front row... and allow them only behind the old buildings... and in the front row i would only approve buildings with 1920, 30 architecture... like one bennet park

- you know what i mean ?

The 1920's were 100 years ago, friend.