CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[harryc]

Nov 28

[harryc]

Nov 28

[harryc]

Dec 1

[harryc]

Dec 1

[harryc]

Dec 1

[nomarandlee]

Great updates Harry! As usual.


.....So, this is very in the realm of banter gossip but over on the dna_studio page on Instagram they have a render of the Gateway Tower by Gensler with a caption that says "Tomorrow AB".
Anyone have any scoop on what IF anything could be at hand?

www.instagram.com/p/BcPu2aKgusz/

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by harryc

Dec 1

The lighting on this photo is wonderful.

[230Roberto]

nomarandlee,

I don't know what that means, I hope to wake up to an update or something, but I don't really like the Gateway's legs going over LSD, I just would not like it how it would look on the road, but I don't mind a megatall so...

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Great updates Harry! As usual.


.....So, this is very in the realm of banter gossip but over on the dna_studio page on Instagram they have a render of the Gateway Tower by Gensler with a caption that says "Tomorrow AB".
Anyone have any scoop on what IF anything could be at hand?

www.instagram.com/p/BcPu2aKgusz/

Tomorrow AB simply refers to the firm that created the rendering
Tomorrow

[Fvn]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Great updates Harry! As usual.


.....So, this is very in the realm of banter gossip but over on the dna_studio page on Instagram they have a render of the Gateway Tower by Gensler with a caption that says "Tomorrow AB".
Anyone have any scoop on what IF anything could be at hand?

www.instagram.com/p/BcPu2aKgusz/

Article about the rendering in that Instagram image:
https://www.chaosgroup.com/blog/tomorrow-gensler-gateway-tower
(The article was posted in April of 2017)

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yes, we would like one of these please:



From the artcle.

[harryc]

Nov 22

from the Ashland stop on the Green line


Nov 28

[10023]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yes, we would like one of these please:



From the artcle.

Not very elegant, but I like the concept.

Even better would be to create public space over LSD that extends to that little tip of park. Otherwise they should just develop the land on the other side of LSD. It's isolated and useless now.

[sentinel]

The other McCormick Place hotel has topped-out. Sorry, no pics

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yes, we would like one of these please:



From the artcle.

The X crosshatch design on the outside is very reminiscent of the JHC, I like it.

I have hopes that like the JHC, this building would spur the next wave of supertalls in the city. When the new benchmark is 2,000 feet, it could inspire others to set a new minimum or even strive for an even taller height. I guarantee Rahm would help lead the fight into changing the FAA height limit on buildings in Chicago if it meant a big time development.

[hammersklavier]

Don't hold your breath there. Part of the reason we see so few supertalls anymore is that once a project breaks a certain height threshold (somewhere in the 900' range IIRC?) everything becomes monumentally more expensive. So for projects in the supertall range to make sense, they either have to be:

(a) located in areas with truly astronomical land values (like Manhattan), or
(b) somebody's pet project to the point where the financials don't really matter (like in Dubai)

For most of the rest of us, supertalls will only come down the pike every so often and mainly as skyline crowners.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Don't hold your breath there. Part of the reason we see so few supertalls anymore is that once a project breaks a certain height threshold (somewhere in the 900' range IIRC?) everything becomes monumentally more expensive. So for projects in the supertall range to make sense, they either have to be:

(a) located in areas with truly astronomical land values (like Manhattan), or
(b) somebody's pet project to the point where the financials don't really matter (like in Dubai)

For most of the rest of us, supertalls will only come down the pike every so often and mainly as skyline crowners.

So for somewhere like China, why the tsunami of supertalls? Land in China can't be that expensive in relation to somewhere like Manhattan. And are people really getting so rich in China they are consistently ignoring the business aspect of building these giant buildings by the dozens in the past decade or so?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Don't hold your breath there. Part of the reason we see so few supertalls anymore is that once a project breaks a certain height threshold (somewhere in the 900' range IIRC?) everything becomes monumentally more expensive. So for projects in the supertall range to make sense, they either have to be:

(a) located in areas with truly astronomical land values (like Manhattan), or
(b) somebody's pet project to the point where the financials don't really matter (like in Dubai)

For most of the rest of us, supertalls will only come down the pike every so often and mainly as skyline crowners.

The owner/developer of the former Spire site, Related Midwest, has very clearly indicated that they intend to create a 'monumental' building for this property (emphasis theirs)...whether that means a 1,001' or a 1,600' tall tower is anyone's guess - we'll just have to wait until the design is released.

Also, your first point doesn't make much sense, because if anything above 900' is cost-prohibitive, it makes more sense to build something taller in Chicago, where construction costs are about 2.5-3x less than Manhattan. Market demand may be higher in Manhattan, perhaps even by that same factor range, but that doesn't mean nothing above 900' ever gets built outside of only the most expensive real estate market in the Western Hemisphere.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

So for somewhere like China, why the tsunami of supertalls? Land in China can't be that expensive in relation to somewhere like Manhattan. And are people really getting so rich in China they are consistently ignoring the business aspect of building these giant buildings by the dozens in the past decade or so?

I would bet that it's worth looking into relative land value (while the cost of land ppsm in the heart of Tianjin might not be as much at an absolute level as that of Manhattan, it might actually be worth more when indexed to purchasing-power parity ... keep in mind that the entire Shanghai conurbation, for example, is a fraction the size of the New York conurbation, which would also increase land values in built-up areas), labor costs, etc ... and keep in mind here that many of the larger proposals have some form or another of public support (read: subsidies, zoning relief, etc) over there, to a much greater extent than we tend to see in our cities.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The owner/developer of the former Spire site, Related Midwest, has very clearly indicated that they intend to create a 'monumental' building for this property (emphasis theirs)...whether that means a 1,001' or a 1,600' tall tower is anyone's guess - we'll just have to wait until the design is released.

Also, your first point doesn't make much sense, because if anything above 900' is cost-prohibitive, it makes more sense to build something taller in Chicago, where construction costs are about 2.5-3x less than Manhattan. Market demand may be higher in Manhattan, perhaps even by that same factor range, but that doesn't mean nothing above 900' ever gets built outside of only the most expensive real estate market in the Western Hemisphere.

Your rebuttal is incoherent IMO. Immediately prior you pointed out that the developer was seeking a monumental building (hence the financials are less important). You'll find a similar drive towards monumentality for the two most visible supertalls outside of Manhattan, CTC and Salesforce.

If you think back to supertalls built outside of the two major demands I identified -- market or impulse to monumentality -- there are two outstanding examples of speculative construction: the Empire State Building, which didn't turn a profit until the 1950s (!!), and the World Trade Center, which was developed by PATH and didn't really need to turn a profit to be financially justified. Every other example I can think of -- CTC, Salesforce, Hancock, Sears Tower, 30 HY, and so on -- is either an expression of its main tenants' desire for monumentality or -- as with those condo supertalls -- able to financially justify itself by offering what you or I would generally consider inordinately expensive product.