Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280
Why? Its not like they are going to tear the Sears tower down because its only 60% full...
If anything its good for the Sears since it will force the owners to make renovations or lose lots of money on their investment.
|
What renovations are you thinking the Sears Tower needs, exactly? It has 13 feet, floor-to-floor, a few spaces that have never even been built out, A/C out the wazoo, some of the best electrical, telecommunications and network wiring in the U.S., beautiful lobbies, beautiful modern elevators.
What, exactly, do you think needs to be modernized there since the 1990s renovations?
The Sears Tower's only real liability is that it's seen as a terrorist target. And maybe that it's not 100% new - but no renovation would change either of those points, and with the infrastructure it has, any company could move in there and create a stunning space equal to or better than a space in any other existing tower in the city, maybe even country and world.
I'm not saying anything should be done outside of market forces to aid it, I'm just saying it's not reasonable for you to say that the owners need to invest in redoing it, because there's honestly not much redoing that's needed or even beneficial. The only thing I can think of that might change it is to redo the way it interfaces with Adams - but that would be monumental and could easily leave it worse off if executed poorly.
The Sears' owners need to find a way to address prospective tenants' fears about terrorism. I worked for a company that could have gotten space in the Tower for an obscenely low rate (single digits per square foot), but didn't do it because a few key players said they'd quit before they'd work there based on the fears of their spouses. THAT is what the Sears Tower is up against, not the newness of construction on the Chicago River.