When will Chicago get a new tallest?.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Fabricio JF

In my opinion, NY builds what the market demands to be the tallest in matter of buildings

the bolded is generally true for all US cities.

vanity projects are much fewer and further in between here than some other places around the globe.

in most cases, skyscrapers are "machines that make the land pay", so if you want a lot of supertalls, you need extremely high land values to justify them.

NYC has that, but chicago generally does not.



but land values are high enough in chicago to justify the construction of a lot of new towers that fall just a bit below that mark.

over the past 8 years or so, chicago has added 10 new towers over 700' to its skyline, with an 11th one now financed and due to start any month now.

once completed, that will bring the total number of 700+ ft. towers in chicago to 30!!

that is FAR more such towers than any other US city not named NYC.





St. Regis | 1,191 FT | Studio Gang


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...-chicago/17137



One Chicago | 971 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=3385



NEMA | 896 FT | Rafael Vinoly


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...-chicago/21954



Salesforce Tower | 850' | Pelli Clark & Partners


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=2544



One Bennett Park | 836 FT | Robert A.M. Stern


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...ett-park/17214



110 N Wacker | 817 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...h-wacker/28315



1000M | 805 FT | JAHN


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=2741



River Point | 732 FT | Pickard Chilton


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...ver-point/1381



BMO Tower | 727 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=1328



150 N Riverside | 724 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...iverside/15587







and the 11th such tower of this building boom that will start any week now:

400 N LSD - North Tower | 851 FT | SOM

[Fabricio JF]

@Steely In addition to the Chicago Spire, I visited the construction site for the Wanda Vista Tower.

The cancellation of the Chicago Spire is attributed to the 2008 recession. After that, NY seems to have recovered, but Chicago, which had been progressing promisingly in terms of projects, no longer followed that path. Below is the "Big Hole" article, to corroborate the post's assumptions.



Chicago vs. This Very Large Hole
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hole-with-dirt

Yes, as you said, land values in Chicago are high, but not high enough to justify a megatall or at least supertalls at the same height level as new buildings in NY.

I believe there is another ingredient: The explosion of gang violence that took place in the city and which reached one of its peaks during my visit in 2016. This could drive away investors and devalue land, especially if the situation persists for years to come.

These buildings you showed are quite spread out, but the fact is that Chicago has not yet managed to build anything close to the Sears Tower. I don't believe that Toronto still has buildings at the level of Chicago, but at the current rate of construction, Toronto may start to stand out more as the city most visible in NY's rearview mirror.

Remembering that in this case NY also went through difficult times with gang violence in the 80s and that gradually decreased. I don't know if violence alone can be listed as one of the factors that explains greater economic stagnation in a city.

We can also assume a magnet effect with a plausible appreciation as a result of a megatall. If the Chicago Spire had been built, could other supertalls have been built later?

Below the photos I took from the construction site of what is currently called The St. Regis Chicago.


2016-09-17 12.09.45 by Fabricio JF on Flickr


2016-09-17 12.11.34 by Fabricio JF on Flickr


2016-09-17 12.11.42 by Fabricio JF on Flickr


2016-09-17 12.11.55 by Fabricio JF on Flickr

And below how the new Chicagoan supertall became after the end of the construction:


View from Navy Pier by Joe Passe on Flickr

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Fabricio JF

I believe there is another ingredient: The explosion of gang violence that took place in the city and which reached one of its peaks during my visit in 2016. This could drive away investors and devalue land, especially if the situation persists for years to come.

No.

I'm afraid that's a red herring.

There was no "explosion" of gang violence in Chicago in 2016.

Chicago has had the nation's most intractable street gang problem since at least the '60s.

In fact, in 1974 when the sears tower was completed, there were 970 homicides that same year.

And in 2021, when St. Regis was completed (after Sears, the second tallest tower ever built in the US outside of NYC), there were 800 homicides in the city.

It's the same old fucking song in Chicago year after year, decade after decade.

For whatever reason, the media loves to play it up as some sort of "new" problem, but don't believe the hype.




So no, I do not think chicago's gang violence problem has much of any bearing on downtown tower construction.

[Fabricio JF]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

No.

I'm afraid that's a red herring.

There was no "explosion" of gang violence in Chicago in 2016.

Chicago has had the nation's most intractable street gang problem since at least the '60s.

In fact, in 1974 when the sears tower was completed, there were 970 homicides that same year.

I didn't know about this long history, thanks for informing but when I traveled the news about violence started to explode in the headlines. I was worried, but fortunately it was a problem restricted to the suburbs. In the Loop, which was the area I visited, it was super safe, it didn't seem like there was that much fear there.

Take in mind that I didn't fully attribute violence to this problem, but I just made an assumption. For example, NY began to build its large buildings recently when the problem of gang violence mainly in areas like Harlem and Bronx seems not a major concern of yesteryear.

And in 2021, when St. Regis was completed (after Sears, the second tallest tower ever built in the US outside of NYC), there were 800 homicides in the city.

Wouldn't the Trump International Hotel and Tower be taller than the St. Regis? In any case, it was started in 2005 and finished in 2009, appearing to have narrowly escaped the economic recession and still within that boom that Chicago was experiencing with audacious projects.

It's the same old fucking song in Chicago year after year, decade after decade.

For whatever reason, the media loves to play it up as some sort of "new" problem, but don't believe the hype.




So no, I do not think chicago's gang violence problem has much of any bearing on downtown tower construction.

We can list other variables that explain why there is no longer the pace that the city had before the 2008 recession. Ultimately, I believe that for a megatall and more supertalls to emerge, there would have to be a set of favorable factors that would lead to this fact, as Chicago could support buildings of this size.

I also thought about 9-11 here to try to think more about future megatalls. A parallel could be made to the Titanic. Cruiser ships for passengers seem to no longer be viable with the massification of commercial aviation that followed later. Huge commercial towers, which could be megatalls, no longer have space with the advent of technologies such as AI and more flexible labor rules such as home office. NY started to build more residential after 9-11 and the current 1WTC was built to fill the void of 2 towers practically the same size.

The demand for commercial use in supertalls seems to be decreasing, being more visible now in the post-pandemic world. Without demand for commercial use, there are undoubtedly fewer options about uses for these buildings. Residential, hotel, speculative and multi-use use would have to be studied on a case-by-case basis.

The use of the Chicago Spire gives a clue that such assumptions would be right: There would be a possibility of having a demand for residential use in a megatall. The best chances of getting a new taller in Chicago could be with this use.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Fabricio JF

Wouldn't the Trump International Hotel and Tower be taller than the St. Regis?

Chicagoans don't count cheater poles.

Cuz we're cool like that.

Originally Posted by Fabricio JF

We can list other variables that explain why there is no longer the pace that the city had before the 2008 recession.

This comment is very indicative of the "supertall myopia" that afflicts so many on this forum.

Chicago is currently experiencing its biggest ever big tower building boom right now!

10 new towers over 700' with an 11th on the way.

That's never happened before in the entire history of this city.

But because all but one of them fall below the mythic 1,000' threshold, they apparently don't exist in the minds of many here.

The reason that all of those recent 700' - 999' tall Chicago towers fell shy of 1,000' is because of land values in downtown, not fucking gang violence down in Englewood or wherever.


Remember: "SKYSCRAPERS ARE MACHINES THAT MAKE THE LAND PAY"

[Zapatan]

I didn't know about this long history, thanks for informing but when I traveled the news about violence started to explode in the headlines. I was worried, but fortunately it was a problem restricted to the suburbs. In the Loop, which was the area I visited, it was super safe, it didn't seem like there was that much fear there.

Downtown and the North side in my experience is relatively safe, greater Chicago has 9.5 million people so some of the horrible areas you hear about are totally segregated from the nice ones.

Wouldn't the Trump International Hotel and Tower be taller than the St. Regis? In any case, it was started in 2005 and finished in 2009, appearing to have narrowly escaped the economic recession and still within that boom that Chicago was experiencing with audacious projects.

I think he meant roof height. Vista Tower is the second tallest building in the US outside NYC by roof height but third architecturally.

When you think about it, if you subtract the fins of Tribune East, it's not too drastically taller than Vista, maybe by 150+ feet or so. Seems to be within the realm of possibility if the stars align.

The use of the Chicago Spire gives a clue that such assumptions would be right: There would be a possibility of having a demand for residential use in a megatall. The best chances of getting a new taller in Chicago could be with this use.

Megatalls are ridiculously expensive and construction is cheap in China and UAE. Buildings generally stop becoming economical after 300 or so meters, even in the most populated cities. Most projects beyond that, even here in the USA are just vanity projects. 400+ meter giants like Sears, Billionaires row and WTC likely did not need to be as tall as they are.

Chicago would have to make a huge splash and actually follow through with something approaching 2000'. Right now NYC has more supertalls than the rest of the CONTINENT combined, and isn't stopping. Chicago's best shot for even staying within sight of NYC for best skyline would be building the tallest/grandest tower between the two of them. Even then, I'd say the ship has sailed. If anything, Toronto is a lot closer in the rearview mirror (although not as close as the Toronto homers think they are) than Chicago is to NYC.

Toronto is still behind Chicago by most skyscraper metrics. I've always found the whole rhetoric to be exaggerated unless we're talking proposals which are never certain.

[Fabricio JF]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicagoans don't count cheater poles.

Cuz we're cool like that.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think he meant roof height. Vista Tower is the second tallest building in the US outside NYC by roof height but third architecturally.

lol, I don't think it's fair to consider antennas either, but we'll have to tell CTBUH about that. They seem to consider architectural height for official height rating purposes

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

This comment is very indicative of the "supertall myopia" that afflicts so many on this forum.

Chicago is currently experiencing its biggest ever big tower building boom right now!

10 new towers over 700' with an 11th on the way.

That's never happened before in the entire history of this city.

Yeah I see, but units in these buildings are of lower value than units in supertalls and 1 hypothetical megatall.

Taller buildings such as supertalls and megatalls generate a type of magnet for promoting the city's image in general (And a tendency for housing prices to rise as well). It might not be like this, but we saw that cities that began to appear with supertalls and megatalls began to stand out more on the global planisphere than before they having them. Some cities also gaining pompous titles and complementary investments of different natures as a result too.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Megatalls are ridiculously expensive and construction is cheap in China and UAE. Buildings generally stop becoming economical after 300 or so meters, even in the most populated cities. Most projects beyond that, even here in the USA are just vanity projects. 400+ meter giants like Sears, Billionaires row and WTC likely did not need to be as tall as they are.

Therefore, American and overseas billionaires would have to buy into the idea of acquiring units in these projects, whether to reside or to speculate.

I think only after market research would this be viable. Is there a demand from billionaires who want to invest astronomical amounts in Chicago in a super-construction that will consequently inflating housing in the surroundings of the Loop and Downtown? And some will say Chicago's population could also be consulted. Do they want this building taller than Sears, as the overall higher values could drive a reallocation into residential and commercial units?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicagoans don't count cheater poles.

Cuz we're cool like that.








This comment is very indicative of the "supertall myopia" that afflicts so many on this forum.

Chicago is currently experiencing its biggest ever big tower building boom right now!

10 new towers over 700' with an 11th on the way.

That's never happened before in the entire history of this city.

But because all but one of them fall below the mythic 1,000' threshold, they apparently don't exist in the minds of many here.

The reason that all of those recent 700' - 999' tall Chicago towers fell shy of 1,000' is because of land values in downtown, not fucking gang violence down in Englewood or wherever.


Remember: "SKYSCRAPERS ARE MACHINES THAT MAKE THE LAND PAY"

The 1960s and 1970s had certain tax exemptions available for commercial skyscrapers that are no longer available today. That’s why there’s a huge glut of commercial space from that era all across the U.S.

It’s easier to build a tall vanity tower when the federal government lets a giant corporation write off a good chunk of the costs.

Outside of government distortions, Chicago’s skyscraper tendencies today are much the same as they were for most of the 1800s and early 1900s.

Over a century ago, NYC built a LOT taller (giraffe) due to extreme wealth and land shortages, while Chicago built shorter and bulkier (elephant) due to lots of land and economy of scale.

In veeeery specific circumstances like giant real estate bubbles or record low interest rates, something like Trump Tower or St. Regis get built.

But complaining about Chicago not building the Spire is as ridiculous as complaining about Chicago not building the Empire State Building. The circumstances were highly unlikely to begin with

1897

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Fabricio JF

Yeah I see, but units in these buildings are of lower value than units in supertalls and 1 hypothetical megatall.

Taller buildings such as supertalls and megatalls generate a type of magnet for promoting the city's image in general (And a tendency for housing prices to rise as well). It might not be like this, but we saw that cities that began to appear with supertalls and megatalls began to stand out more on the global planisphere than before they having them. Some cities also gaining pompous titles and complementary investments of different natures as a result too.

This is the same logic as the anti-gentrification people thinking that new buildings cause gentrification. Growing wealth is what brings attention to a place, and some places use their wealth for vanity supertalls. But the supertalls aren’t the cause of the wealth.

San Francisco built almost diddly squat as far as skyscrapers go, and the skyscrapers they had certainly didn’t cause their real estate to go bananas.

And some will say Chicago's population could also be consulted. Do they want this building taller than Sears, as the overall higher values could drive a reallocation into residential and commercial units?

Chicago millionaires and billionaires prefer Lincoln Park mansions.
Sears Tower isn’t even the high value location of the Loop. Why would another supertall inflate nearby property values just because it exists?

The high volume of modest towers going up in Fulton Market is doing more for values than St. Regis, and St. Regis is as distinctive and tall a Tower as anyplace in the world.

[Fabricio JF]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

This is the same logic as the anti-gentrification people thinking that new buildings cause gentrification. Growing wealth is what brings attention to a place, and some places use their wealth for vanity supertalls. But the supertalls aren’t the cause of the wealth.

San Francisco built almost diddly squat as far as skyscrapers go, and the skyscrapers they had certainly didn’t cause their real estate to go bananas.

Okay, but I just talked about trends. It's not a rule that 100% applies in all cases and I'm sorry if it wasn't clearly understood. You're right about San Fran. By that logic, there should be more tall buildings there.

We can talk about Monaco too. There are no skyscrapers there because billionaires prefer lower residences. The point is that there is a demand that has been filled: Billionaires who want to live in supertalls or megatalls somewhere in the world. This seems to have worked for NY, for example, with the skinny residential supertalls it built near Central Park.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Chicago millionaires and billionaires prefer Lincoln Park mansions.
Sears Tower isn’t even the high value location of the Loop. Why would another supertall inflate nearby property values just because it exists?

The high volume of modest towers going up in Fulton Market is doing more for values than St. Regis, and St. Regis is as distinctive and tall a Tower as anyplace in the world.

The Chicago Spire appeared at a time when the real estate bubble was about to burst. And perhaps that's the only reason it appeared, because instead of residents, speculators could be aiming for financial gains, this being a rule of the game (Which is calculated risk).

Note: Your giraffe vs elephant post is brilliant and helps elucidate some differences between the Big Apple and the Windy City that I didn't even know about. Thanks for posting.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago is currently experiencing its biggest ever big tower building boom right now!

10 new towers over 700' with an 11th on the way.

[/B]

Outside of the Jahn tower that just topped out, what other towers of significance are being constructed? I can't think of a single one. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, but I think the boom is over. Compared to other cities i spend time in these days (NYC, DC, Toronto) Chicago seems pretty sleepy from a construction perspective.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Toronto is still behind Chicago by most skyscraper metrics. I've always found the whole rhetoric to be exaggerated unless we're talking proposals which are never certain.

I find this hard to believe in 2023. I spend quite a bit of time in Toronto, and one of my first reactions when landing in the city is always how it has passed Chicago in terms of highrises. but to be fair, Toronto skyscrapers are in more nodes, not clustered in one CBD like Chicago.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I find this hard to believe in 2023. I spend quite a bit of time in Toronto, and one of my first reactions when landing in the city is always how it has passed Chicago in terms of highrises. but to be fair, Toronto skyscrapers are in more nodes, not clustered in one CBD like Chicago.

It's not just that highrises are more spreadout in Toronto. It's that Toronto has the advantage with shorter highrises and Chicago has the advantage with taller highrises (skyscrapers). The taller you go the greater the lead for Chicago and the shorter you go, the greater the lead for Toronto.

Based on the SSP diagrams section, if you search at each city by checking "highrise" as the structure type, "built, construction and on-hold" checked for the status, and "official height" as the order-by column, they both have 210 buildings of 128m or taller. As soon as you go lower than that, Toronto has more and as soon as you go higher, Chicago has more. Obviously that cut-off height has steadily increased over time as Toronto has pumped out a huge number of buildings in the 150m+ range, and given the current trajectory Toronto will continue to gain. But it would take a long time to overtake Chicago in all height ranges and there's no guarantee that Toronto construction rates won't slow or Chicago's won't increase which could slow or even reverse the trend.

And of course that is purely in terms of height and quantity without considering architectural taste and quality which can't really be quantified in the same way. And it assumes the SSP diagram database is equally comprehensive for both.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Outside of the Jahn tower that just topped out, what other towers of significance are being constructed?

Re-read post #41.

10 new towers over 700' with an 11th soon to be underway!!

The most exciting time for big tower cinstruction in Chicago since the days of 'the big 3".

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I find this hard to believe in 2023. I spend quite a bit of time in Toronto, and one of my first reactions when landing in the city is always how it has passed Chicago in terms of highrises. but to be fair, Toronto skyscrapers are in more nodes, not clustered in one CBD like Chicago.

High-rises are not skyscrapers though. I'm referring to tall buildings (150+ meters) and very tall buildings (300+ meters)

Chicago still wins both of those.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Re-read post #41.

10 new towers over 700' with an 11th soon to be underway!!

The most exciting time for big tower cinstruction in Chicago since the days of 'the big 3".

Right, but I was commenting on the right now part, I feel like the boom is over. yeah that past 8 years were good, but it feels like the sun is setting on that boom.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

High-rises are not skyscrapers though. I'm referring to tall buildings (150+ meters) and very tall buildings (300+ meters)

Chicago still wins both of those.

I don't have data in front of me, but I find that hard to believe.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I don't have data in front of me, but I find that hard to believe.

From the CTBUH:

This is of course just completed buildings but still... not sure how many Toronto buildings are outside the city limits though (Mississauga etc.) (Is Mississauga outside the city limits?)

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/cities


150m+

Chicago: 137
Toronto: 84

200m+

Chicago: 37
Toronto: 27

300m+

Chicago: 7
Toronto: 0 (2 U/C though)

CN Tower sort of counts but not fully.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

From the CTBUH:

This is of course just completed buildings but still... not sure how many Toronto buildings are outside the city limits though (Mississauga etc.) (Is Mississauga outside the city limits?)

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/cities


150m+

Chicago: 137
Toronto: 84

200m+

Chicago: 37
Toronto: 27

300m+

Chicago: 7
Toronto: 0 (2 U/C though)

CN Tower sort of counts but not fully.

I guess that is about what I would expect for Toronto City Limits, i'm not an expert on Toronto nor do I know the exact height of every building there. What I can tell you, from the dozen or so times i've been there this year, is if one does a 360 view of the Toronto area and takes in all of the different skylines, then does the same in Chicago, I don't know how one can come to the conclusion Chicago has more highrises. As I mentioned, downtown Chicago is chunkier than downtown Toronto, but Toronto has a shit load of secondary skyscraper nodes outside the core.

[Fabricio JF]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Sears Tower isn’t even the high value location of the Loop. Why would another supertall inflate nearby property values just because it exists?

The high volume of modest towers going up in Fulton Market is doing more for values than St. Regis, and St. Regis is as distinctive and tall a Tower as anyplace in the world.

I've been thinking here about your comment about the Sears Tower and St. Regis.

I would like you to comment on possible explanations for these observations of lower values or prices not as high as expected near these two towers.

In the case of the Sears Tower, wouldn't it be the fact that it is an older tower, with concepts from the 70s (Neither of these points would still explain a lesser capacity to increase the value of the location in the Loop where it is built), but already properly depreciated? (Perhaps this could be linked to lower values, at least for rentals and acquisitions of commercial units in the surrounding area)

In the case of St. Regis, I suspect two problems with the location where it was built: The proximity to a part of the Chicago River that is not as urbanistically inviting as the part that intersects Michigan Ave. I walked around that entire area and I confess that I noticed a a certain degree of carelessness there, there were bushes to be cut and I don't know if they looked at that afterwards (I didn't think about using Street View to see how it is looking now, as it doesn't give the same impression as being there in person). Furthermore, the place seems to attract more strange people and has that metal bridge that looks a little intimidating for being close to more noble buildings. Plus: Wouldn't the nearby Big Hole be hindering the area's appreciation potential?