CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS - Page 41

the urban politician · #**801** Posted **Aug 26, 2009, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

^ That terrace would be a great overlook for a bar/restaurant.

I would certainly have cocktails up there...

spyguy · #**802** Posted **Aug 26, 2009, 6:46 PM**

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder26.article

Law firm turns to East Loop
Baker & McKenzie seeks to lease 300,000 square feet, dousing plan for new West Loop high-rise

August 26, 2009
DAVID ROEDER

The law firm Baker & McKenzie LLP is negotiating to lease about 300,000 square feet in the East Loop, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. If the deal is completed, it would snuff out plans for a new office high-rise in the West Loop where Baker was slated to be an anchor tenant.

The source said Baker will move from the old Prudential Building, 130 E. Randolph, just up the street to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Building at 300 E. Randolph. Blue Cross parent Health Care Service Corp. is building 24 stories atop what had been a 33-story building. Baker's space requirement would translate into about nine floors of the addition, which could command premium rents because of the commanding view of Millennium Park.

Steely Dan · #**803** Posted **Aug 26, 2009, 7:15 PM**

^ bummer. well that's pretty much the last nail in the coffin for this one.

i suppose we can finally change it to "never built" now.

Northwest · #**804** Posted **Aug 28, 2009, 5:13 PM**

Im disappointed. Especially after those beautiful new renders appeared only a month ago.
I really liked the design, and the location is one of a kind. Comparable to the special place on the riverfront that is now Trump Tower.
Oh well. At least this has been a great demonstration of what can be done with a relatively difficult site to build on.

Busy Bee · #**805** Posted **Aug 28, 2009, 5:43 PM**

I'm going to speak out here, and I am prepared to be crucified, but... I honestly in my gut feel like this is for the best. I know the building was sexy, but I always felt like there was something off about it, and it wasn't just the height. And the fact that Hines refused to combine the office and the hotel annex into a taller tower was just irritating.

For one reason or another it just didn't do it for me. It didn't feel Chicago to me and I'm fairly confident in my opinion that it did the site no justice. I think if we wait it out, we can get something better.

uaarkson · #**806** Posted **Aug 28, 2009, 8:42 PM**

God dammit

J_M_Tungsten · #**807** Posted **Aug 28, 2009, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm going to speak out here, and I am prepared to be crucified, but... I honestly in my gut feel like this is for the best. I know the building was sexy, but I always felt like there was something off about it, and it wasn't just the height. And the fact that Hines refused to combine the office and the hotel annex into a taller tower was just irritating.

For one reason or another it just didn't do it for me. It didn't feel Chicago to me and I'm fairly confident in my opinion that it did the site no justice. I think if we wait it out, we can get something better.

I have to agree. It was an interesting design for sure, but it kind of looked like an over sized sunglass case. This site still has potential for something nice to go on it, so time will tell.

i_am_hydrogen · #**808** Posted **Jul 15, 2011, 4:09 PM**

Developers court large companies to anchor new office buildings
Goal is to resurrect West Loop projects that fell victim to credit crisis

By Alejandra Cancino, Tribune reporter
July 15, 2011

Developers are dusting off office building models and brochures with an eye toward finding the right tenants to resurrect West Loop projects that were put on hold two years ago amid the credit crisis...

...A case in point is Hines Interests LP's project at 444 W. Lake St., also known as River Point. In 2008, Hines pre-leased about two-thirds of the 52-story building to investment firm William Blair & Co. and law firm Baker & McKenzie. Both deals fell through when Hines couldn't obtain financing, and the proposed 1.1 million-square-foot building was put on hold...

Now, as the economy recovers in fits and starts, a version of the project seems to have a second chance.

Van Schaack said it could be pared to 40 stories. Scaling back would make it easier to meet the pre-leasing threshold to secure financing...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,4907128.story

jcchii · #**809** Posted **Jul 19, 2011, 2:29 AM**

this coming back would be really great news. it should already be there

ardecila · #**810** Posted **Jul 19, 2011, 3:13 AM**

I'm looking forward to more Pickard Chilton sexiness.

spyguy · #**811** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 7:16 PM**

650' tall, 45 floors, retail (Starbucks, sandwich shop, fine dining restaurant)

DonMendigo · #**812** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

650' tall, 45 floors, retail (Starbucks, sandwich shop, fine dining restaurant)

Really? Where did you see that at?

If so, that's great.

Busy Bee · #**813** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 7:51 PM**

I just fell asleep all over again.

the urban politician · #**814** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 7:55 PM**

Can you clarify what you mean be "It's baaaack.."

The rendering is back? The proposal is back? The website is back? What's back exactly?

10023 · #**815** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 7:56 PM**

It does lose something with the height reduction, have to say.

Bond007 · #**816** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 7:57 PM**

Love it! Build it.

the urban politician · #**817** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 7:59 PM**

Looks like they made a few small changes.

Like I said before, these new shorter, boxy office towers probably make sense during these economic times, and I'm happy to see vacant lots disappear, but I have to admit that this particular site is prominent and a taller tower would be far more fitting.

But alas, if the demand and financing aren't there then there's nothing we can do about it.

lawfin · #**818** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Looks like they made a few small changes.

Like I said before, these new shorter, boxy office towers probably make sense during these economic times, and I'm happy to see vacant lots disappear, but I have to admit that this particular site is prominent and a taller tower would be far more fitting.

But alas, if the demand and financing aren't there then there's nothing we can do about it.

Yeah I agree, but that being said the design leaves me sort of feeling......meh

Like 10023 said it has lost something or maybe instead it has gained something it seems fat, stocky, lacking grace. Disappointed given the prominence of the site. It should be better.

i_am_hydrogen · #**819** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 8:17 PM**

The outdoor area surrounding the building is intriguing. It has the potential to create new pathways and vantage points on the city in the same vein as Trump Tower.

Steely Dan · #**820** Posted **Apr 26, 2012, 8:17 PM**

i don't know, if they can actually get it built at 650', then that's pretty par for the course for major office towers in chicago over the past 2 decades.

major office towers since 1993:

300 North LaSalle - 785 ft
Blue Cross Blue Shield - 743 ft
111 South Wacker Drive - 681 ft
Hyatt Center - 679 ft
UBS Tower - 651 ft
155 North Wacker - 638 ft
353 North Clark - 624 ft
Citadel Center - 580 ft
1 South Dearborn - 571 ft
191 North Wacker Drive - 516 ft
ABN AMRO Plaza I - 453 ft