CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in terms of 500+' buildings, we're not quite at that level yet.

currently there are 8 500+' buildings U/C in chicago.

between 2007-2010, there were 17 500+' buildings completed in chicago. now, they weren't all U/C at the same time, but that 4 year span saw the greatest number of completed 500+' buildings of any 4 year span in the city's history.



each closed dot below represents a completed 500+' building in chicago, each open dot represents one that is currently U/C.

Yes this boom has produced alot of smaller projects 200ft to 400ft range... the 2007-2010 was really are most impact-full with the scale of projects..but we'll see what this year brings us... We have the Spire, potentially a few large scale office projects, and im sure some wild cards that we may not know of yet...time will tell

[TimeAgain]

The big high rise news this year to me will be the continued construction of projects already underway (Vista, Indiana, One BP), the start of Essex and Wolf Point East, whether or not 1000 S gets started, and what gets unveiled at the Spire site.

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by TimeAgain

The big high rise news this year to me will be the continued construction of projects already underway (Vista, Indiana, One BP), the start of Essex and Wolf Point East, whether or not 1000 S get started, and what gets unveiled at the Spire site.

I really hope sterling bay wins the union station rfp.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

I really hope sterling bay wins the union station rfp.

You say that before seeing the other proposals?

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in terms of 500+' buildings, we're not quite at that level yet.

currently there are 8 500+' buildings U/C in chicago.

between 2007-2010, there were 17 500+' buildings completed in chicago. now, they weren't all U/C at the same time, but that 4 year span saw the greatest number of completed 500+' buildings of any 4 year span in the city's history.

You make a good point re there being substantially fewer 500+' buildings under construction today than were completed between 2007 and 2010 .

But to me, buildings between 500' to 600' are a dime a dozen in Chicago. And even buildings in the 600' to 700' range don't make a visual impact from a height perspective.

The buildings that catch my eye in terms of "ooh ahh that's a tall building" are 700 ft or higher.

And in terms of those 700+' tall buildings, we've been doing pretty well recently.

Between 2007-10 there were 6 700+' buildings completed in Chicago, while currently there are 5 700+' buildings under construction in Chicago.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE

If anyone is around The Sinclair can you snap some update photes? It's got to be getting big.

The crane at the Sinclair jumped up in the past few days, but not by much.
I too am curious how many floors it's got left before t/o.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

You make a good point re there being substantially fewer 500+' buildings under construction today than were completed between 2007 and 2010 .

But to me, buildings between 500' to 600' are a dime a dozen in Chicago. And even buildings in the 600' to 700' range don't make a visual impact from a height perspective.

The buildings that catch my eye in terms of "ooh ahh that's a tall building" are 700 ft or higher.

And in terms of those 700+' tall buildings, we've been doing pretty well recently.

Between 2007-10 there were 6 700+' buildings completed in Chicago, while currently there are 5 700+' buildings under construction in Chicago.

But the shorter buildings that collectively occupy a much more massive footprint are what generate the cityscape that will make or break the city. Nobody moves to a city because of the skyline.

Filling in those lots with higher uses, creating an increasingly urban environment, sets the stage for more high rise construction down the road. And i feel we did a better job of that with this boom than the last.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But the shorter buildings that collectively occupy a much more massive footprint are what generate the cityscape that will make or break the city. Nobody moves to a city because of the skyline.

Filling in those lots with higher uses, creating an increasingly urban environment, sets the stage for more high rise construction down the road. And i feel we did a better job of that with this boom than the last.

Yeah I think that's probably true. I think the difference is that this boom as been mostly rentals where the last was more of a condo boom which tends to produce taller buildings. I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the two at a smaller scale.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But the shorter buildings that collectively occupy a much more massive footprint are what generate the cityscape that will make or break the city. Nobody moves to a city because of the skyline.

Great Point! A great urban environment, with or without skyline, is a major asset.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

Great Point! A great urban environment, with or without skyline, is a major asset.

I'd rather have 5 30 story buildings than one 100 story building.

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

I'd rather have 5 30 story buildings than one 100 story building.

I bet most cities would trade five 30-story buildings for one 100 story building in a heartbeat.

A 100 story building = bragging rights and increased tourism.

Whereas practically every city of a decent size has five 30 story buildings.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

I bet most cities would trade five 30-story buildings for one 100 story building in a heartbeat.

A 100 story building = bragging rights and increased tourism.

Whereas practically every city of a decent size has five 30 story buildings.

Not really. If a 100 story building isn't woven into the urban fabric of a city, then you have a redwood on the plains. Skyscrapers doesn't always = urbanity.

[go go white sox]

I been on here for a few years and I always hear members mention "this cycle" or "next cycle, my question is, do cities like Chicago or NYC really ever have a complete halut to construction of highrises or just a major reduction? Kind of a silly question I know and I'm sure there always construction going on, but like during the recession I do recall very little activity, and right now we clearly in a boom. How do we know when it ends? Do these forums become ghost towns? Lol just curious
Thanks

[maru2501]

no real rules, IMO, although generally individual decades are looked at for their development activity, and therein periods of extremely heightened activity or breaks in activity such as the recession, yes.

it's just perceivable bursts or lulls

[go go white sox]

Originally Posted by maru2501

no real rules, IMO, although generally individual decades are looked at for their development activity, and therein periods of extremely heightened activity or breaks in activity such as the recession, yes.

it's just perceivable bursts or lulls

Thank for the response I understand

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

I bet most cities would trade five 30-story buildings for one 100 story building in a heartbeat.

A 100 story building = bragging rights and increased tourism.

Whereas practically every city of a decent size has five 30 story buildings.

The vast majority of people, even on this forum, don't travel just to see a tall building. They travel to visit a city, to experience the urbanity of a different city, to feel how different cities implement urbanity differently. Sure, if a city has an unusually tall building with an observation deck we may go visit it - but it's rarely the primary reason for going to that city, and most people would agree that if the only reason a city was famous was one tall building it would make for a very lame vacation.

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

You say that before seeing the other proposals?

Well, I have the most faith in sterling bay actually finding office tenants, not to mention their design is very impressive. I am excited to see the Pelli Clarke/Gang design.

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by emathias

The vast majority of people, even on this forum, don't travel just to see a tall building. They travel to visit a city, to experience the urbanity of a different city, to feel how different cities implement urbanity differently. Sure, if a city has an unusually tall building with an observation deck we may go visit it - but it's rarely the primary reason for going to that city, and most people would agree that if the only reason a city was famous was one tall building it would make for a very lame vacation.

The more tourist attractions a city has, the more attractive the city is as a destination for tourists.

There are only 4 100 story buildings in the U.S.: One World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, the John Hancock Center, and the Empire State Building.

And they are all major tourist attractions.

Imagine Salt Lake City or Denver had a 100-story building with an observation deck. Would that mean their tourism would increase by a huge amount? Probably not.

But I think there's no doubt they'd see at least some increase in their tourism.

[Mikemak27]

Curbed has a good rundown of what is on the agenda for The Chicago Plan commission in January. Needless to say, I'm thrilled that all five of the west loop proposals will break their imaginary and ridiculous 100 feet height limit. While I absolutely hate gerrymandering with a passion, I would look the other way if this neighborhood gets chipped into 4 different wards again during the 2020 remap.

http://chicago.curbed.com/2017/1/4/1...lan-commission

[SolarWind]

January 4, 2017