CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT - Page 143

Mojava · #**2841** Posted **Jun 17, 2009, 2:07 PM**

They've been trying to sell this development for a while...this just makes it official.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34442

Waterview Hotel project on the market
By: Alby Gallun June 17, 2009

(Crain’s) — CB Richard Ellis Inc. is taking on one of the toughest jobs in today’s languishing downtown real estate market: finding a buyer for the stalled Waterview Tower and Shangri-La Hotel project on Wacker Drive.

djvandrake · #**2842** Posted **Jun 17, 2009, 5:28 PM**

A tough job for certain, but at least now there's a professional firm actively trying to find a new owner. That's better than this languishing in court proceedings.

andydie · #**2843** Posted **Jun 17, 2009, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djvandrake

A tough job for certain, but at least now there's a professional firm actively trying to find a new owner. That's better than this languishing in court proceedings.

indeed and for once i hope they find maybe a buyer from the Emirates or Qatar, maybe even a Chinese developer who can bring this building to its full hight

830point35 · #**2844** Posted **Jun 18, 2009, 4:31 AM**

Is that exposed rebar corrosion going to present a problem?

chi-arch · #**2845** Posted **Jun 18, 2009, 2:42 PM**

^For the current developer? nope

shakman · #**2846** Posted **Jun 18, 2009, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 830point35

Is that exposed rebar corrosion going to present a problem?

How long has it been exposed?

chi-arch · #**2847** Posted **Jun 18, 2009, 6:22 PM**

15-16 months or so...
If this was Hawaii the rebar would be half it's original size by now

I think it can sit out there actually for quite some time and when ready just remove the scale and rust, check the diameters for any significant loss for good measure and start pouring concrete again. No problem....

kayosthery · #**2848** Posted **Jun 19, 2009, 1:38 PM**

Dismantling that crane will be a major undertaking and Teng is probably being smart in putting it off as long as possible in hopes of a new developer taking over and using it.

A few possibilities:

1. At the very least either Upper Wacker or Clark will have to be shut down so that a 300+ ton crane can set-up there. If it's Clark, they'll have to look at what's underneath and possibly reinforce. If it's Wacker then...

2. They'll have to shut down Lower Wacker to possibly erect shoring towers to help handle the load imposed on the outriggers of the crane. Shutting down an Upper and Lower level of a major city street is a huge expense.

3. There is the possibility of erecting a derrick on the top level, but that will require a crane (see 1 and 2 above) to get it up there and major engineering work to determine if it can even do what's needed from that slab.

All of these cost major $ and I think Teng is better off asking for extensions and trying to sell the building and getting the new developer to work with Central on keeping the crane there.

chrslyp · #**2849** Posted **Jun 19, 2009, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojava

They've been trying to sell this development for a while...this just makes it official.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34442

Waterview Hotel project on the market
By: Alby Gallun June 17, 2009

(Crain’s) — CB Richard Ellis Inc. is taking on one of the toughest jobs in today’s languishing downtown real estate market: finding a buyer for the stalled Waterview Tower and Shangri-La Hotel project on Wacker Drive.

in that crain's article, it was mentioned that "some observers of the project believe it's worthless." i could not disagree more with that statement. Although the market is in extremely poor shape, waterview has the possibility to become profitable to whoever can buy it for cents on the dollar.

harryc · #**2850** Posted **Jun 19, 2009, 11:10 PM**

Thank you for the insightful input kayosthery

JMH_Architecture · #**2851** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 12:47 AM**

Maybe they should pay a crane operator to "use it" that way they don't have to take it down they could lift and lower the same thing over and over lol

kayosthery · #**2852** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMH_Architecture

Maybe they should pay a crane operator to "use it" that way they don't have to take it down they could lift and lower the same thing over and over lol

The crane that was up at The Columbian had to be manned once a week and put through its paces after the building was topped out and before it was scheduled to work with one of the subs. I can't remember the actual amount of time it sat without doing anything productive. A few months at best, nothing remotely close to this situation.

Tacoma Boy · #**2853** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 5:23 AM**

Harry, what is that building in your above picture? I really like the lines on it.

Northwest · #**2854** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacoma Boy

Harry, what is that building in your above picture? I really like the lines on it.

77 W Wacker, also known as the United Building. It used to be called R R Donnelly. I really like it too, although it doesnt get much love from everyone here. The lobby is beautiful, all polished stone and 40 foot ceiling. I love the lighting at night, and the non-flat green roof.

chi-arch · #**2855** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 2:16 PM**

The lighting on the United(RR Donnelly) Building was designed by the same lighting designer that illuminated the Parthenon several years ago. True story.

Waterview Tower rising up next to this building always seemed to be a great fit.

Tacoma Boy · #**2856** Posted **Jun 21, 2009, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northwest

77 W Wacker, also known as the United Building. It used to be called R R Donnelly. I really like it too, although it doesnt get much love from everyone here. The lobby is beautiful, all polished stone and 40 foot ceiling. I love the lighting at night, and the non-flat green roof.

Wow. I hadn't realized it was that big boy across the street... never had seen the bottom before.
That really is one nice looking building. I know Chicago has a couple rough spots with Waterview and the CS both on hiatus, but you cats really are lucky. There isn't anything at all like your buildings out here on the Left Coast.

ardecila · #**2857** Posted **Jun 21, 2009, 6:20 AM**

Haha - and 77 W. Wacker is one of the ones that we turn up our noses at here in Chicago. When the same architect, Ricardo Bofill, was brought in on 3 other projects, everybody complained. Only one of those 3 was built, however (Citadel Center).

Apex · #**2858** Posted **Jun 21, 2009, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacoma Boy

Wow. I hadn't realized it was that big boy across the street... never had seen the bottom before.
That really is one nice looking building. I know Chicago has a couple rough spots with Waterview and the CS both on hiatus, but you cats really are lucky. There isn't anything at all like your buildings out here on the Left Coast.

Yep, and according to Emporis this building also won the Best Structure Award from the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois in 1992. It has aged quite well, it still looks basically new.

chas · #**2859** Posted **Jul 6, 2009, 7:18 PM**

I have always been a booster of the Bofill building and don't understand the gripes against it. Even with its somewhat dated and postmoderny pediment it is a beautiful addition to the Wacker--the only way to improve it would be to complete its worthy would-be neighbor!

chrisvfr800i · #**2860** Posted **Jul 7, 2009, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayosthery

Dismantling that crane will be a major undertaking and Teng is probably being smart in putting it off as long as possible in hopes of a new developer taking over and using it.

A few possibilities:

1. At the very least either Upper Wacker or Clark will have to be shut down so that a 300+ ton crane can set-up there. If it's Clark, they'll have to look at what's underneath and possibly reinforce. If it's Wacker then...

2. They'll have to shut down Lower Wacker to possibly erect shoring towers to help handle the load imposed on the outriggers of the crane. Shutting down an Upper and Lower level of a major city street is a huge expense.

3. There is the possibility of erecting a derrick on the top level, but that will require a crane (see 1 and 2 above) to get it up there and major engineering work to determine if it can even do what's needed from that slab.

All of these cost major $ and I think Teng is better off asking for extensions and trying to sell the building and getting the new developer to work with Central on keeping the crane there.

To use a derrick they'd have to redesign the top level, whatever that level would be. I thought the original plan, upon top out of the tower, was to climb down the crane as normal to the transfer level, which at 8' thick, was able to support the derrick for final removal. If there will be no 8' thick floor, a new design is needed. It's probably too high to be taken down from the street using a hydro.