CHICAGO | 300 North LaSalle | 785 FT / 239 M | 60 FLOORS - Page 30

BorisMolotov · #**581** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 3:18 PM**

Man are you picky!

I love this building too, but I;m not as picky to the exxtent you are!

urban_encounter · #**582** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

I wonder when the tower crane will go up. I haven't even seen one on site yet.

I was wondering the same thing ... Especially considering how far construction has progressed.

CHAPINM1 · #**583** Posted **Mar 5, 2007, 7:21 PM**

We could definetly use a building just like this in Minneapolis! I love the design, the color, and how it will light up ect... Anyway if it were here in Minneapolis it would be the second tallest. On side news, I hear the same architects Packard Chilton may be a part of the rumored new tallest in Minneapolis whenever that will be.

jcchii · #**584** Posted **Mar 5, 2007, 8:37 PM**

location is the best thing about it. great height north of the river.

it will thicken the skyline from just about any and every angle

chicubs111 · #**585** Posted **Mar 5, 2007, 9:51 PM**

Its a great project... and to be honest we dont get many buildings like this with this height and size in chicago. I mean we get alot of office towers in that 1 mil to 1.2 mil square foot range that top out around 680ft...or we either have really big buildings that are the 1000fts but we dont have many large office towers in the loop area that are in the 700ft range, a few more of these and they really add depth and presence to the skyline and street level effect.

laro3 · #**586** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 6:28 PM**

rumor has it that K&E law firm wants more sqft.about 100,00 i think,would they add height to the building if that is the case or just give them more floors?

laro3 · #**587** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 6:29 PM**

100,000 sorry

Fabb · #**588** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 6:40 PM**

Why would they add height ? Plenty of floors are still available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Have any of you Emporis superstars checked the real plans for this thing? Specifically, I don't think we ever resolved the issue re: their mysterious hopscotch numbering system. I fear this one might not really be a 60-story tower - I only come up with 55, including the mezzanine.

... or 56. But certainly not 60. I agree with that.

BVictor1 · #**589** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabb

Why would they add height ? Plenty of floors are still available.

... or 56. But certainly not 60. I agree with that.

No one has gone yet.

otis1 · #**590** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 9:29 PM**

Since you guys are curious, this is the current stacking plan, elevations are in CCD

LL4 -28’-3”
LL3 -13’-1”
LL2 -3’-7”
LL1 +7’-6”
L1 +25’-9”
L2 +44’-8”
L4 +62’-4”
L5 +77’-4”
L6 +90’-4”
L7 +111’-4”
L9 +129’-4”
L10 +142’-4”
L11 +155’-4”
L12 +168’-4”
L13 +181’-4”
L14 +194’-4”
L15 +207’-4”
L16 +220’-4”
L17 +233’-4”
L18 +246’-4”
L19 +259’-4”
L20 +272’-4”
L21 +285’-4”
L22 +298’-4”
L23 +311’-4”
L24 +324’-4”
L25 +337’-4”
L26 +350’-4”
L27 +363’-4”
L28 +376’-4”
L29 +389’-4”
L30 +402’-4”
L31 +415’-4”
L32 +428’-4”
L33 +441’-4”
L34 +454’-4”
L35 +467’-4”
L36 +480’-4”
L37 +493’-4”
L38 +506’-4”
L39 +519’-4”
L40 +532’-4”
L41 +546’-6”
L42 +560’-6”
L43 +572’-6”
L44 +585’-6”
L45 +598’-6”
L46 +611’-6”
L47 +624’-6”
L48 +637’-6”
L49 +650’-6”
L50 +663’-6”
L51 +676’-6”
L52 +698’-6”
L53 +702’-6”
L54 +715’-6”
L55 +728’-6”
L56 +743’-0”
L57 +757’-6”
L58 +772’-0”
L59 +786’-0”
L60 +796’-0”
L61 +807’-5-1/4” (roof)

These are slab heights, the highest elevation i have seen is 808'-6"

Also, the tower cranes wont be erected until the rest of the hole is dug out

spyguy · #**591** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 9:30 PM**

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=24132&bt=kirkland&arc=n&searchType=all

Sears Tower to lose another tenant

...

GTCR has agreed to lease the two top floors of the 60-story structure, or about 50,000 square feet, according to sources familiar with the deal.

...

Meanwhile, Kirkland & Ellis, which originally agreed to take 600,000 square feet, is in talks to add between 75,000 and 100,000 square feet, sources say

...

Elite Business Centers has signed a lease for a floor at 300 N. LaSalle, or about 25,000 square feet, says David G. Miller, senior vice-president with Rosemont-based real estate firm Colliers Bennett & Kahnweiler Inc.

Kngkyle · #**592** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=24132&bt=kirkland&arc=n&searchType=all

Sears Tower to lose another tenant

...

GTCR has agreed to lease the two top floors of the 60-story structure, or about 50,000 square feet, according to sources familiar with the deal.

...

Meanwhile, Kirkland & Ellis, which originally agreed to take 600,000 square feet, is in talks to add between 75,000 and 100,000 square feet, sources say

...

Elite Business Centers has signed a lease for a floor at 300 N. LaSalle, or about 25,000 square feet, says David G. Miller, senior vice-president with Rosemont-based real estate firm Colliers Bennett & Kahnweiler Inc.

Well bad news for Sears. But good news for Office tower development. They don't seem to be having much trouble filling the building before it even starts to rise out of the ground.

DePaul Bunyan · #**593** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by laro3

rumor has it that K&E law firm wants more sqft.about 100,00 i think,would they add height to the building if that is the case or just give them more floors?

I don't think that's possible. I remember reading in this thread about the foundation of this building, and someone said that the caissons were only into hardpan and not bedrock. This building is proposed as tall as it can be right now without needing caissons drilled into bedrock, so I don't think it's possible to make it taller now. Does someone want to correct me if I'm wrong?

BorisMolotov · #**594** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 11:03 PM**

Well according to Otis1, the new roof height is 808'. Which, if correct, is another 800'er!

Chitown · #**595** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BorisMolotov

Well according to Otis1, the new roof height is 808'. Which, if correct, is another 800'er!

Geez. The good news just keeps coming.

Steely Dan · #**596** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BorisMolotov

Well according to Otis1, the new roof height is 808'. Which, if correct, is another 800'er!

no. that's gotta be a CCD height, and we don't measure buildings from city datum, we measure them from the sidewalk outside their front entrance, so the height of this one is still 784', unless the CDs say differently whenever one of the height hounds gets a look at them.

BVictor1 · #**597** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BorisMolotov

Well according to Otis1, the new roof height is 808'. Which, if correct, is another 800'er!

He's taking the information from CCD, so that doesn't |"OFFICIALLY" count.

When Emporis collects height data, they use the main entrance as a reference point, and that's at 0'-0".

The height data that Otis supplied cones from about 25' below the main entrance.

Otis, can you supply the height information using the methods that I mentioned above?

Someone from Emporis will eventually go to the construction trailer on site to gather accurate data on all aspects of the tower. If I can't do it tomorrow, I will try to go down sometime next week.

SamInTheLoop · #**598** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 12:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabb

Why would they add height ? Plenty of floors are still available.

... or 56. But certainly not 60. I agree with that.

Yep - I think this building might be in the neighborhood of 60-65% leased right now.......by 2009 they'll have no trouble being
above 90%...

SolarWind · #**599** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 1:22 AM**

March 8, 2007

aaron38 · #**600** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 3:29 AM**

Thanks Solarwind.
Now that it's moving, this should be pretty impresive by summer.