CHICAGO | Tribune Tower Addition | 1,442 FT | 113 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

If there hasn't been a height reduction, you think they'll shoot for tallest building in Chicago?

Either way that's awesome news

[the urban politician]

If they begin this cycle, I will explode

[Hourstrooper]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

If they begin this cycle, I will explode

if this begins this cycle we all need to have a banana suit party on site for this thing lol!!

[Zapatan]

Why would that (it beginning this cycle) be out of the question?

You'd think they'd want to seize the opportunity, plus they stated they'd likely start construction in late 2019/early 2020

There seems to be this idea that there's no way Chicago could pull off a 1,400 foot building when in reality one has existed there for nearly 50 years, and was the first globally

I'm not getting my hopes high but this is definitely good news

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

If there hasn't been a height reduction, you think they'll shoot for tallest building in Chicago?

I have a gut feeling that the developers are more interested in replacing Trump Hotel & Tower as Chicago's 2nd tallest building, than in becoming the new tallest in the city. Thus, I suspect that even if there has been or will be a drop in height, it will be small so the structural height would still be at least 1390 ft (Trump's is 1389 ft). Assuming the final design won't rely on a skinny spire to reach this height, 1390 ft would still look substantially taller than Trump, whose roof is only 1171 ft high, shorter than Vista's 1199 ft.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I have a gut feeling that the developers are more interested in replacing Trump Hotel & Tower as Chicago's 2nd tallest building, than in becoming the new tallest in the city. Thus, I suspect that even if there has been or will be a drop in height, it will be small so the structural height would still be at least 1390 ft (Trump's is 1389 ft). Assuming the final design won't rely on a skinny spire to reach this height, 1390 ft would still look substantially taller than Trump, whose roof is only 1171 ft high, shorter than Vista's 1199 ft.

I have a gut feeling developers want to line their pockets with cash, and could care less about who's got the tallest building in the city.

[cozy]

My gut feeling is that developers are tryna get that bagg and the only way we will see a height bump is if their team can prove it is commercially viable.

Taking #1 spot, or replacing trump as #2, has nothing to do with their decision


edit: LOL rgolch we posted the same thought at the same time. im leaving it up

[the urban politician]

You don’t design a 1400 ft Batman Tower if you’re just trying to make money.

I fully subscribe to the idea that real estate development is ‘maximize profits first’, but there is ego, art, and inspiration involved as well.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by AlpacaObsessor

Ran into somebody from Golub at a networking event last week and they seemed pretty confident in a construction start during this market cycle. I just wish I wasn't so drunk to the point I couldn't think of any worthwhile questions to ask him ; _ ;

Too bad you were so hammered.

I hope you weren’t drunkenly hitting on his wife

[AlpacaObsessor]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You don’t design a 1400 ft Batman Tower if you’re just trying to make money.

I fully subscribe to the idea that real estate development is ‘maximize profits first’, but there is ego, art, and inspiration involved as well.

I will add that the event I went to started off with a few moderated panel discussions, one of which this guy from Golub was a part of, and when the question of 'can you describe the decision making processes in your respective firms' was asked, Golub guy's answer was something along the lines of 'our firm has a lot of active investors from innovative coastal markets who are often the ones bringing us ideas to implement in slower adapting markets such as Chicago.'

[the urban politician]

^ Translated as, New York money saying “let’s do something bigger and more eye catching than everyone else in this cowtown”

Who am I to complain?

[chris08876]

If there is any tower currently in the pipeline that has to rise, its this one. Best one I think this cycle to rise with the current design. Even more so than Vista. This is the signature tower that is truly needed.

[cozy]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You don’t design a 1400 ft Batman Tower if you’re just trying to make money.

I fully subscribe to the idea that real estate development is ‘maximize profits first’, but there is ego, art, and inspiration involved as well.

This is America, not Dubai. The only reason you build a 1400ft batman tower is to try to make money.

While there is ego, art, and inspiration involved in these projects, banks and investors don't care for it.

[The Lurker]

Right. If money/profitability weren't an issue they would probably just shoot for the tallest in the city.

[pianowizard]

Having a 1400-footer in Chicago is a great way for a developer to advertise themselves, which may help make money down the road. Moreover, some tenants may be willing to pay more to rent space in a prominent tall building than in some unknown low-rise. Obviously if you build too tall, the cost would outweigh the potential profit. There is a sweet spot somewhere, which might indeed be ~1400 ft in Chicago right now.

Speaking of "Batman Tower", this Tribune Tower looks slightly like Hong Kong's Two International Finance Centre, which was featured in the 2008 Batman movie "The Dark Knight": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Finance_Centre_(Hong_Kong)

[Zapatan]

I have a gut feeling that the developers are more interested in replacing Trump Hotel & Tower as Chicago's 2nd tallest building, than in becoming the new tallest in the city. Thus, I suspect that even if there has been or will be a drop in height, it will be small so the structural height would still be at least 1390 ft (Trump's is 1389 ft). Assuming the final design won't rely on a skinny spire to reach this height, 1390 ft would still look substantially taller than Trump, whose roof is only 1171 ft high, shorter than Vista's 1199 ft.

2nd tallest is good, but tallest is way better. If it's only another 30+ feet added to the current design, that's not much at all. I'm not the developer and I realize that would still increase the cost, perhaps too much, but opportunities are meant to be seized. When else are they going to get the chance for Chicago's tallest?

Right. If money/profitability weren't an issue they would probably just shoot for the tallest in the city.

Right, but if they only lose a little to be able to claim "tallest" title, then maybe it's still worth it.

You don’t design a 1400 ft Batman Tower if you’re just trying to make money.

Whether you are or aren't I am in full support of changing this towers' name to "Batman Tower".

It does remind me of 2IFC in Hong Kong as well which is awesome

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

There is a sweet spot somewhere, which might indeed be ~1400 ft in New York right now.

ftfy

[AlpacaObsessor]

Originally Posted by cozy

This is America, not Dubai. The only reason you build a 1400ft batman tower is to try to make money.

While there is ego, art, and inspiration involved in these projects, banks and investors don't care for it.

To be fair, some investors are more risk-averse than others. I'd imagine that a larger developer like Hines or Trammell Crow would certainly have a very large contingent of conservative investors to answer to such as pension funds and the likes. But, Golub is a bit of a smaller company, they still describe themselves as a family run business on their website, and from what I've heard they're just the right size of company where they're large enough to have good access to capital, have the ability to carry out large projects, and can handle downturns better than most, but not so large to where you feel like you're a cog in the machine in that it's not difficult to get to know everybody in the firm regardless of your position up or down the managerial ladder. I'd wager that such a firm would have greater leeway in regards to what kind of investors they decide to partner with (less risk-averse probably), and with a strong track record of successes and established lending relationships they could probably garner at least some attention from banks.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Translated as, New York money saying “let’s do something bigger and more eye catching than everyone else in this cowtown”

Who am I to complain?

More like: "We're getting disappointing RoIs in the coastal markets, and we're looking for good locations with reasonable prices in some other cities. A big tower near Chicago's Architect Advertising River is the publicity cherry on top."

[boeing738]

I wonder: if this ends up getting built, could this encourage more taller developments in the city? With other tall buildings, such as Vista and OCS, along with this project, would others see that taller builds (1100+ ft, for example) can definitely succeed here, and therefore consider adding height more than they did before similar projects (or possibly this one) were built? I think this certainly raises the bar some amount for developers that have important sites to build on.

What are your thoughts on this?