CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[chris08876]

Thought this was cool.



Credit: Civixplorer

[Randomguy34]

Ya know, the past several months has had a lot more proposals, and a few projects have thawed and started breaking ground....is another boom around the corner?

[munchymunch]

It’s an interesting question isn’t it. I remember (I was back in middle school this might be fuzzy) when the last “boom” was starting we saw a similar bubbling of 20-40 story apartment towers. Mainly in river north, and now this time we have the west loop getting the new buildings. The apartments feel to me similar to me as back then when the last boom was starting. And given the lack of new inventory and rents rising I see that trend continuing.

Office on the other hand feels different. I keep hearing that A+ office demand is high and tenants are interested in new buildings but the deals can’t pencil yet. Costs are too high and rates are too high.

I think we are at a beginning of a “blip” more than a “boom”. Which is nice but unfortunately I think we need something bigger to “break” for costs and rents to make sense for another boom that we saw in the 2010s.

The 2010s benefited from a lot of dry powder, costs down, demand and low interest rates. This time I feel like we really only have demand.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Thought this was cool.



Credit: Civixplorer

Only sad point is most of the tall ones were built in the 1960's and 1970's. Trump and Aqua the exceptions. And Sears is not even in the photo. I only use the original names. I wonder if NYC's issues will help Chicago?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Only sad point is most of the tall ones were built in the 1960's and 1970's.

Of the 13 700+ footers visible in the "now" shot, only 3 of them were built in the 60s/70s - Aon, Big John, and Water Tower Place.

Chicago now has 30 towers over 700', here's how they break down by decade of completion:

1960s - 2
1970s - 3
1980s - 4
1990s - 3
2000s - 5
2010s - 6
2020s - 7

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Of the 13 700+ footers visible in the "now" shot, only 3 of them were built in the 60s/70s - Aon, Big John, and Water Tower Place.

Chicago now has 30 towers over 700', here's how they break down by decade of completion:

1960s - 2
1970s - 3
1980s - 4
1990s - 3
2000s - 5
2010s - 6
2020s - 7

I should have said, over 1000 foot like all the buildings I listed.

[Steely Dan]

There are only a total of 4 1,000+ footers visible in that shot.

Big John - 1969
Aon - 1973
Trump - 2009
Vista - 2020

[F1 Tommy]

My point is, in less than 10 years we put up 3 1000 footers, and since 1974 only 2, and a few close to 1000 foot. It is nice to see more 700-800 foot buildings fill in and even out the skyline. I guess Chicago needs another Daley senior type mayor. Although he also tore down a lot of great historical buildings.

If you think about it, what the old man did was amazing. Always pushing for height. Maybe Chicago lost it's mojo after 1974 and again after the Spire. At least we got Trump and Aqua, but nothing like the 3 that went up during Daley SR, compared to what was going on at the time. Back in 1974 no one had 1000 footers besides NYC.

Chicago really fell behind NYC in the last 10 years in tall buildings. We put up a lot of square footage, but no halo super tall buildings. Meanwhile NYC cranked out several a year.

[NSW2492]

I think we’ve punched above our weight considering the fact that the population of the city in that 1937 shot was 700,000 higher than it is today. It’s more cost effective to expand out than up. Even with the population and density of downtown growing, that only covers the economics of development to an extent.

[UrbanDweller98]

Originally Posted by NSW2492

I think we’ve punched above our weight considering the fact that the population of the city in that 1937 shot was 700,000 higher than it is today. It’s more cost effective to expand out than up. Even with the population and density of downtown growing, that only covers the economics of development to an extent.

I think the problem is we are barely building at all, yes small infill in residential areas are going up all over but the city is struggling to build even 400-500 foot towers whereas much smaller cities like Nashville, Charlotte and Austin are booming. If we had five or six 500 ft towers under construction right now i think people would be prefer that over one 1,000 ft tower but pretty soon we will have none under construction with 400 LSD topping out.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

My point is, in less than 10 years we put up 3 1000 footers, and since 1974 only 2, and a few close to 1000 foot. It is nice to see more 700-800 foot buildings fill in and even out the skyline. I guess Chicago needs another Daley senior type mayor. Although he also tore down a lot of great historical buildings.

If you think about it, what the old man did was amazing. Always pushing for height. Maybe Chicago lost it's mojo after 1974 and again after the Spire. At least we got Trump and Aqua, but nothing like the 3 that went up during Daley SR, compared to what was going on at the time. Back in 1974 no one had 1000 footers besides NYC.

Chicago really fell behind NYC in the last 10 years in tall buildings. We put up a lot of square footage, but no halo super tall buildings. Meanwhile NYC cranked out several a year.

Appreciate the introspective but you did just get proven wrong and now changing subject. Regardless I think we should focus on Chicago in the Chicago highrise thread

[iguy]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

My point is, in less than 10 years we put up 3 1000 footers, and since 1974 only 2, and a few close to 1000 foot. It is nice to see more 700-800 foot buildings fill in and even out the skyline. I guess Chicago needs another Daley senior type mayor. Although he also tore down a lot of great historical buildings.

If you think about it, what the old man did was amazing. Always pushing for height. Maybe Chicago lost it's mojo after 1974 and again after the Spire. At least we got Trump and Aqua, but nothing like the 3 that went up during Daley SR, compared to what was going on at the time. Back in 1974 no one had 1000 footers besides NYC.

Chicago really fell behind NYC in the last 10 years in tall buildings. We put up a lot of square footage, but no halo super tall buildings. Meanwhile NYC cranked out several a year.

Agree that it’s been quite disappointing to see Chicago suffer a slowdown (in all new buildings) while NYC is cranking 1300+ footers. I suppose the hope would be that the relative dearth of construction will result in an uptick abased on pent-up demand.

[NSW2492]

Originally Posted by UrbanDweller98

I think the problem is we are barely building at all, yes small infill in residential areas are going up all over but the city is struggling to build even 400-500 foot towers whereas much smaller cities like Nashville, Charlotte and Austin are booming. If we had five or six 500 ft towers under construction right now i think people would be prefer that over one 1,000 ft tower but pretty soon we will have none under construction with 400 LSD topping out.

Well the small infill can be traced back to Emanuel’s 2017 industrial corridor modernization initiative, which greatly expanded zoning allowing mixed use and residential development in large swathes of land near downtown that were historically used for manufacturing, which is an ever shrinking industry in the city that has also lost a ton of people consistently for decades. That is an economic reality a city like Charlotte doesn’t have to contend with. Charlotte is one of the fastest growing cities in the country with an economy that doesn’t have to pivot away from an industry that made the city what it is today. Comparing Chicago development to what is happening in Charlotte or Austin requires one to completely ignore the economics of real estate.

[BVictor1]

1415 N. Dayton St., 821 W. Eastman St.,
811 W. Evergreen Ave., and 1415 N. Kingsbury Street
(Near North Side, 27th Ward)

A proposed Residential Business Planned Development, submitted by 1415 N Dayton, LLC; 811 W. Evergreen, LLC; and 821 W Eastman, LLC; for the property generally located at 1415 N. Dayton St., 821 W. Eastman St., 811 W. Evergreen Ave., and 1415 N. Kingsbury Street. The applicant is proposing to rezone the site from C3-5 (Commercial, Manufacturing, and Employment District) and B2-5 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use District) to a C2-5 (Motor Vehicle-Related Commercial District) and then to a Residential Business Planned Development. The request is sought to permit the construction of a 311-foot-tall residential building at 1415 N. Dayton Street with 340 dwelling units and 163 parking spaces; no new commercial space is proposed with this request. The planned development would be split into 4 subareas, with the proposed residential building to be in subarea A. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Planned Development will be 5.0; for each subarea it would be broken down as follows: 14.87 for Subarea A, 1.05 for Subarea B, 3.37 for Subarea C, and 4.13 for Subarea D.

[ithakas]

Do we have a rough list of 300 foot+ towers that have approvals but are just waiting on financing? Feels like a longer list than usual...

It feels like proposals are zipping through Plan Commission faster than in the past, for what it's worth. Hopefully we can start getting more of these to pencil out for lenders soon.

[BlueDot]

When was the last Class A Office Tower built downtown ?

[left of center]

919 W Fulton opened in January of this year. 360 N Green last year.

[Steely Dan]

And the most recent major class A office tower in Chicago is Salesforce Tower, completed in 2023 - 835'/60 floors.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

Appreciate the introspective but you did just get proven wrong and now changing subject. Regardless I think we should focus on Chicago in the Chicago highrise thread

Not at all. My point was and still is Chicago has not built many large halo 1000 ft + buildings since Trump. Every time one is proposed , the financing falls apart or it gets a large height reduction.

Most of those boom cities people bring up are lucky to get a 800 foot building and only poach from Chicago and other large cities because they are cheaper.

My hope is NYC+Chicago+West coast money will make something happen in Chicago in the next couple of years. A lot of east coast and west coast people are moving here. It's just as nice and much cheaper. Developers are noticing, but need to take a bigger chance, pushed by a mayor. They seem to be so focused on building data centers and over building ware houses they are over looking large skyscrapers.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Not at all. My point was and still is Chicago has not built many large halo 1000 ft + buildings since Trump. Every time one is proposed , the financing falls apart or it gets a large height reduction.

Most of those boom cities people bring up are lucky to get a 800 foot building and only poach from Chicago and other large cities because they are cheaper.

My hope is NYC+Chicago+West coast money will make something happen in Chicago in the next couple of years. A lot of east coast and west coast people are moving here. It's just as nice and much cheaper. Developers are noticing, but need to take a bigger chance, pushed by a mayor. They seem to be so focused on building data centers and over building ware houses they are over looking large skyscrapers.

The St. Regis tower was completed in 2023, and is taller than the Trump tower.

Comparing Chicago to NYC is fruitless, because the population is 3x bigger than Chicago. Developers build depending on market demand, and currently in Chicago, demand is soft for very tall buildings, residential or commercial. AND...there is a litany of other factors affecting local high-rise construction outside of market supply and demand.

This should not be difficult to understand if one stops to think about things for a few minutes.

Skylines are not static, and to assume that developers will not build another supertall in Chicago is somewhat naive.