CHICAGO | General Discussions

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but what's odd about all of that is "why are downtown chicago's land values so high in the first place?"

we're not an island, or a peninsula, or ringed by mountains. our city exists on one of the flattest and most unceasing plains on the planet.

and we are a stagnant region, at best. there is no high population growth here. economic growth is falling relative to our peers.

Well, the Loop WAS an island. Train yards were a real barrier to the south and the river a barrier to the west and north. It was truly expensive to build quality bridges in the late 1800's. Crossing the river was a trip.

The de facto island nature of the Loop meant development all happened there. Just like the San Francisco peninsula or Manhattan island. Thus, infrastructure was concentrated there, namely transit and regional rail.

So the Loop continues to get built up because of legacy infrastructure reasons. There's no other central area in the country that has so many trains all pointed at one spot, other than Manhattan. And even in Manhattan, the areas that have the most high rises are the areas that are served by transit nodes, same as in Chicago.

And sure, Chicago isn't seeing a population boom. But we ARE seeing a boom in the number of people moving to Chicago. It's just that we're seeing a lot of people move away at the same time, so the NET inflow is low. But I don't think any other city has seen a bigger increase in the number of college educated individuals in the last decade. And it's similar for the change in percentage of high-earning households. If you add 100,000 engineers, lawyers and MBAs and lose 95,000 retired postal workers to Arizona, the magnitude gain is small. But it would be difficult to look at those numbers and not understand why you would need to add 20,000 apartments and 20msf of office space.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ChiRaz

I originally wanted to post this on the Salesforce Tower thread when folks were complaining about the height reduction (but it got locked!), but the above posts reminded me of it, especially the post mentioning that the current Chicago boom is not producing many buildings in the current world's 300 tallest. China, Dubai, NYC, etc. - those are simply in a different class, as mentioned and discussed thoroughly on this forum.

Yea this is exaggerated to an annoyingly negative extent. Vista will be in the top 50-75 upon completion and OCS may still make top 200.

But I have to agree with the last few posts. Chicago has always impressed me, it has a mind-blowing skyline and has always been home to some of the world's tallest buildings, so I don't appreciate the self deprecating attitudes of some people.

In Chicago, while we are dense and land value isn't necessarily cheap, it's impressive how many skyscrapers tower over Lake Michigan. We are at a disadvantage on a lot of levels, yet we prove time and time again that we can play with the big boys. And I believe the next cycle will produce towers that will begin to rival Billionaire's Row in Manhattan. New York definitely capitalized on this cycle, and we did too. But, yes. New York won this one lol. But we'll get 'em back. That's how rivalries work!

True, according to the CTBUH Chicago is in the top 5 or 10 for most skyscraper categories. That's nothing to complain about. I really hope next cycle brings some supertalls, but at the end of the day NY and Chi-town are both on team North America.

[AMWChicago]

So I wanted to break down a timeline for everyone to understand if Chicago has actually "lost ground" in the American Skyscraper race. While this only includes top ten data (trust me I know New York is churning out supertalls and this doesn't convey the totals as a city), it gives you an idea at how the general public would of understood where the tallest buildings in the country were located. And honestly, as for the top ten, Chicago is in a very similar situation that it has been in recent decades. But as we've said in this thread, Chicago blows other American cities away. And the past 50 years we've seen a two dog race. I Know this may not be the best thread to post this on, but since we're talking about this kinda stuff right now I'd figure I'd drop it here.

Moreover, like what Zapatan said, we represent the American Skyscraper. While I wish Chicago was neck and neck with New York, we both represent an American Icon and where it began. And like I said before, I think Chicago will grab a couple more of these seats back by 2030. But a 7:3 Ratio is probably expected. And honestly generous to Chicago considering New York has roughly 5 times the high rise count.


Also, the recurring buildings from decade to decade can give us insight to how the standings shook up. In 2020, only 4 buildings from 2010 are in the top ten. That's the lowest amount since 1930. America's top ten have been relatively constant, or took at least 20+ years to have shift around. This may explain why we feel shook up over how New York's skyline has rapidly changed. It's the roaring twenties all over again. But instead of art deco, it's skinny supertalls.

Also, ESB is a stud. He's like Babe Ruth and the Home Run Record. So far ahead of his time. It's amazing how ESB is still in the top ten, truly amazing.

For Comparison:

ESB is on 9 decades up until 2020
Chrysler was on 9 up until 2010
40 Wall St was on 6 up until 1980
Sears is on 5 up until 2020
Hancock is on 5 up until 2010
70 Pine St was on 5 up until 1980
Woolworth was on 5 up until 1960



The American Skyscraper
—————————————


1920

New York-6
Boston-1
Cincinnati-1
Hartford-1
Seattle-1
1920 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

1930

New York-8
Cleveland-1
Detroit-1

Recurring-2
1930 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1940

New York-9
Cleveland-1

Recurring-5
1940 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1950

New York-9
Cleveland-1

Recurring-10
1950 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1960

New York-9
Cleveland-1

Recurring-9
1960 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1970

New York-7
Chicago-2
Pittsburgh-1

Recurring-5
1970 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


1980

New York-7
Chicago-3

Recurring-5
1980 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

1990

Chicago-4
New York-4
Houston-1
Los Angeles-1

Recurring-7
1990 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

2000

Chicago-4
New York-4
Atlanta-1
Los Angeles-1

Recurring-9
2000 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]


2010

Chicago-4
New York-4
Atlanta-1
Los Angeles-1

Recurring- 7
2010 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

2020

New York-7
Chicago-3

Recurring-4
2020 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/157979292@N05/]

[AlpacaObsessor]

Sorry for derailing the discussion away from OCS, but since we're on the topic. What's crazy is that I did a similar analysis about a year ago, but moreso focusing on the change between 2017 and 2022 among the tallest buildings located in NYC+CHI vs other cities. I think part of the motivation behind why I spent like half an hour looking into this shit was just to see how buildings further down the list would be affected in terms of height rank by all the construction going on in NYC and CHI. I remember the high school I used to go to was right next to downtown Dallas and sometimes I'd look out of the window and think to myself how cool it was that the tallest building held the rank of 32nd tallest in the entire United States . . . though looks like by 2022 its gonna get knocked down about 10 or 12 spots.

Disclaimer: There's probably a few misplaced buildings since I believe I pulled the height info off of wikipedia or some other website.

Updated Version as of 2018

Tallest 20 buildings as of 2017:

1: 1WTC (NYC)
2: Sears (CHI)
3: 432 Park Ave (NYC)
4: Trump (CHI)
5: ESB (NYC)
6: BofA (NYC)
7: Aon (CHI)
8: JHC (CHI)
9: Comcast Tower (PHI)
10: Wilshire (LA)
11: 3WTC (NYC)
12: Salesforce (SF)
13: Chrysler (NYC)
14: NYT (NYC)
15: BofA (ATL)
16: US Bank (LA)
17: Franklin Center (CHI)
18: One 57 (NYC)
19: 600 Travis (HOU)
20: 2Prud (CHI)

Tallest 32 buildings in 2022:
(* = new)

1: 1WTC (NYC)
2: *Central Park Tower* (NYC)
3: Sears (CHI)
4: *111 W 57th* (NYC)
5: *1 Vanderbilt* (NYC)
6: 432 Park Ave (NYC)
7: Trump (CHI)
8: *30 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
9: ESB (NYC)
10: BofA (NYC)
11: *Vista* (CHI)
12: Aon (CHI)
13: JHC (CHI)
14: Comcast (PHI)
15: 45 Broad St (NYC)
16: Wilshire (LA)
17: 3WTC (NYC)
18: Salesforce (SF)
19: *9 Dekalb* (NYC)
20: *53W53* (NYC)
21: Chrysler (NYC)
22: NYT (NYC)
23: BofA (ATL)
24: US Bank (LA)
25: *35 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
26: Franklin Center (CHI)
27: One 57 (NYC)
28: 600 Travis (HOU)
29: *1 Manhattan West* (NYC)
30: 2Prud (CHI)
31: Wells Fargo (HOU)
32: *50 Hudson Yards* (NYC)

So between 2018 and 2022, NYC will go from having 4/10 and 8/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 8/10 and 12/20.
And between 2018 and 2022, NYC+CHI will go from having 8/10 and 14/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 10/10 and 17/20.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by AlpacaObsessor

Tallest 32 buildings in 2022:
(* = new)

1: 1WTC (NYC)
2: *Central Park Tower* (NYC)
3: Sears (CHI)
4: *111 W 57th* (NYC)
5: *1 Vanderbilt* (NYC)
6: 432 Park Ave (NYC)
7: Trump (CHI)
8: *30 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
9: ESB (NYC)
10: BofA (NYC)
11: *Vista* (CHI)
12: Aon (CHI)
13: JHC (CHI)
14: Comcast (PHI)
15: 45 Broad St (NYC)
16: Wilshire (LA)
17: 3WTC (NYC)
18: Salesforce (SF)
19: *9 Dekalb* (NYC)
20: *53W53* (NYC)
21: Chrysler (NYC)
22: NYT (NYC)
23: BofA (ATL)
24: US Bank (LA)
25: *35 Hudson Yards* (NYC)
26: Franklin Center (CHI)
27: One 57 (NYC)
28: 600 Travis (HOU)
29: *1 Manhattan West* (NYC)
30: 2Prud (CHI)
31: Wells Fargo (HOU)
32: *50 Hudson Yards* (NYC)

So between 2018 and 2022, NYC will go from having 4/10 and 8/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 8/10 and 12/20.
And between 2018 and 2022, NYC+CHI will go from having 8/10 and 14/20 of the tallest buildings in the US to 10/10 and 17/20.

These posts are way off topic, but just a few corrections - both 50 Hudson and the Spiral are taller than 1 Manhattan West, both under construction. 262 Fifth Avenue will also be taller than 1MW. 45 Broad Street will be around 1,200 ft, putting it in the top ten. All of that will change when you get towers like 270 Park, 2 WTC, all completed after 2022.

So, pushing it a little further to 2025, it would look something like this, all subject to change as various proposals are still in planning stages...


1: Freedom Tower (NY)
2. Central Park Tower (NY)
3. Sears Tower (CHI)
4. 111 W. 57 (NY)
5. Tribune Tower (CHI)
6. Chase Tower (likely higher) (NY)
7. One Vanderbilt (NY)
8. 30 Hudson (NY)
9. 2 WTC (NY)
10. Empire State (NY)


At that point, being nearly 100 years old, the ESB would still be in the top 10 in the country. That's why it's the king. Of that list, only two were standing as recent as 10 years ago.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by NYguy

These posts are way off topic, but just a few corrections - both 50 Hudson and the Spiral are taller than 1 Manhattan West, both under construction. 262 Fifth Avenue will also be taller than 1MW. 45 Broad Street will be around 1,200 ft, putting it in the top ten. All of that will change when you get towers like 270 Park, 2 WTC, all completed after 2022.

So, pushing it a little further to 2025, it would look something like this, all subject to change as various proposals are still in planning stages...


1: Freedom Tower (NY)
2. Central Park Tower (NY)
3. Sears Tower (CHI)
4. 111 W. 57 (NY)
5. Tribune Tower (CHI)
6. Chase Tower (likely higher) (NY)
7. One Vanderbilt (NY)
8. 30 Hudson (NY)
9. 2 WTC (NY)
10. Empire State (NY)


At that point, being nearly 100 years old, the ESB would still be in the top 10 in the country. That's why it's the king. Of that list, only two were standing as recent as 10 years ago.

Incorrect... Trump is taller than ESB

[the urban politician]

^ Thats assuming OCS and a few others (Tribune, etc ) on the boards are never built.

You are the Marothisu of skyscraper data

[the urban politician]

^ I'm not seeing anything surprising here, even without much regional growth.

1. We have a ton of wealth here, and for the better part of the last 60 years, it has remained locked up in the suburbs.

2. With city living now becoming popular everywhere, Chicago is opening up tons of untapped potential, and already has the infrastructure in place to have a downtown nearly filled to the brim with skyscrapers.

Most of the boom has been residential, as evidence of this.

[Rooster slayer]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I will riot if they ever even think about leveling the Ohio House... such a gem

Long live Googie

[10023]

Originally Posted by harryc

River North does make a good catalog of boring design over the past 40yrs - now that the Quaker building has been defaced the only gem left is Ohio House.

Ohio House is a gem?

[Rooster slayer]

Originally Posted by 10023

Ohio House is a gem?

Love it or hate it, Chicago does not have many examples of Gooige architecture despite the fact that John Lautner (a true father of the Gooige architectural style) studied here under F.L.W. for some time.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Rooster slayer

Love it or hate it, Chicago does not have many examples of Gooige architecture despite the fact that John Lautner (a true father of the Gooige architectural style) studied here under F.L.W. for some time.

If that is “Gooige architecture”, then good?


edit: I’ve just looked it up, having never heard of it. “Googie” architecture (which is surprisingly difficult to search for given similar spelling to Google), like Ohio House, belongs in the suburbs or theme parks like Las Vegas. That building should be torn down asap.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

Ohio House is a gem?

Only an insophisticate coastie would ask such a thing. Yes it's a gem, a very endangered gem given the closing in of density around it.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Only an insophisticate coastie would ask such a thing. Yes it's a gem, a very endangered gem given the closing in of density around it.

Living in London has rotted his brain... he makes pretentious comments all the time like that yet isn't banned. Not sure how

[10023]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Living in London has rotted his brain... he makes pretentious comments all the time like that yet isn't banned. Not sure how

I hated that building when I was a teenager in Chicago.

[the urban politician]

I get that Ohio House motel has significance given its design.

But I just wish it were located elsewhere. Downtown is all about street facing retail, density, enclosure, walkability. This is a motel.

When push comes to shove, I highly doubt that the powers that be will landmark it.

[k1052]

Given the relative wealth of shitboxes that can be torn down near Ohio House you'll have a hard time convincing me it should go. Nuke the Rainforest cafe, Hard Rock, the old Carsons, the BP station, postal station, Walgreens, and many others before that.

[10023]

Originally Posted by k1052

Given the relative wealth of shitboxes that can be torn down near Ohio House you'll have a hard time convincing me it should go. Nuke the Rainforest cafe, Hard Rock, the old Carsons, the BP station, postal station, Walgreens, and many others before that.

They’re all terrible, but I find it absolutely comical that so many here find that hideous piece of auto-centric 1950s garbage to be worth preserving. It’s an “architectural style” that originated with an LA drive through and was used for motels, car washes, gas stations and other things that don’t have any business being downtown.

If it were somewhere out near Joliet on the old Route 66, fine. But it has no business in downtown Chicago.

The owners clearly don’t think it has any architectural merit, or they wouldn’t have erected billboards.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by 10023

They’re all terrible, but I find it absolutely comical that so many here find that hideous piece of auto-centric 1950s garbage to be worth preserving.

If it were somewhere out near Joliet on the old Route 66, fine. But it has no business in downtown Chicago.

The owners clearly don’t think it has any architectural merit, or they wouldn’t have erected billboards.

Given the lack of other examples it does not offend me.

There is no compelling reason to tear it down.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by k1052

Given the lack of other examples it does not offend me.

There is no compelling reason to tear it down.

Would you say the same thing about the last standing Gas Station, Walgreens, or strip mall downtown? In my opinion the building is garbage and taking up a prime buildable lot.

Clearly different opinions on this one...