Supertall Tribune Tower East proposal returns with minimal changes (Chicago: live, title)

[DavePa]

Some forget Chicago almost got the "Chicago Spire" foundation n and then the Financial Crash killed it. A lot of European investment in it. NYC didn't even get a Mega-Tall and people here are crying Chicago's falling behind. Not in the States really .... in its Core it is not.

No other city is building taller in the country. NYC s its own beast and super-thin ones are going up. No garages, not much of within extra refinements like Chicago's Luxury new buildings with all kinds of options within the building and parking for your pricey car and its own home with you.

Mega-Talls generally are not profitable. In the US .... profits matter not some higher-esteem to say new tallest. Never say never ..... but the Spire might have been that one shot that sadly timing killed at early construction in 2007 08.

I personally would have preferred it away from the lakefront being 2000 ft. Many Super-talls were proposed and never built. NOW ONE NEARING COMPLETION, ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ONE POSSIBLY IN 2022 STARTED. Market in Chicago in two years and no recession will effect it built or not.

Jahn's 1000M S Loop just shy of super-tall height might have started? I read it was to. THESE ALL MATTER TOO IN PRESTIGE AND SKYLINE. I like the Vista, One Benner and Nema.

There really is no need for mega-talls in the States ..... IMO. Yes in Asia they are for symbolism. We build for profits. Dubai's tallest by Chicago Architectural from SOM. MADE NO PROFITS. Smaller ones built around it was where they made up the cost.

I'm fine with a new one passing Sears. Trump's Tower was suppose to originally as I noted before, but got scaled back. CHICGO IS DOING JUST FINE WITH THIS CURRENT BATCH OF TALL ONES.

Since my point on the Tribune one planned going up over that 30ft height to pass Sears. IS THE DEVELOPERS CHOICE. Whether they just don't want to or see SEARS passing isn't what they I'm for. Some may yet. IF YOUNG? Most of you have plenty of time to see.

[dtcbnd03]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

The highlighted, this has nothing to do with the discussion here. You realize NYC has had a higher population than Chicago for the past century... but Chicago led not just NYC, but the world in skyscraper height?

Chicago can absolutely build taller, even considering a lower population than NYC. Again, from a historical standpoint, "tallest" skyscrapers are Chicago's game, not NYC's. And there is a lot more space to build in Chicago.

It has everything to do with the discussion since people were talking about falling behind NYC. The Sears Tower was built in 1970 with a population of 3.3M. Google image the Chicago skyline in 1970...now overlap it with the skyline of 2019....then consider the population has declined to 2.7M...there's no demand for megatalls because (as you agreed with me) Chicago has more space to build out and the numerous skyscrapers and supertalls that dot the skyline. NYC needs the 1500+ cause limited within Manhattan's borders and gradually growing population. Not to mention the numerous global wealth that buys there simply to park their money...hide it...or launder it. The demand for a 1500+ in Chicago just isn't there cause if it was it woulda been built by now. Plus as others have pointed out 9/11 fears and insurance costs aren't worth it...this is why Supreme Leader Tower was scaled back in height.

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by DavePa

Some forget Chicago almost got the "Chicago Spire" foundation n and then the Financial Crash killed it. A lot of European investment in it. NYC didn't even get a Mega-Tall and people here are crying Chicago's falling behind. Not in the States really .... in its Core it is not.

No other city is building taller in the country. NYC s its own beast and super-thin ones are going up. No garages, not much of within extra refinements like Chicago's Luxury new buildings with all kinds of options within the building and parking for your pricey car and its own home with you.

Mega-Talls generally are not profitable. In the US .... profits matter not some higher-esteem to say new tallest. Never say never ..... but the Spire might have been that one shot that sadly timing killed at early construction in 2007 08.

I personally would have preferred it away from the lakefront being 2000 ft. Many Super-talls were proposed and never built. NOW ONE NEARING COMPLETION, ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ONE POSSIBLY IN 2022 STARTED. Market in Chicago in two years and no recession will effect it built or not.

Jahn's 1000M S Loop just shy of super-tall height might have started? I read it was to. THESE ALL MATTER TOO IN PRESTIGE AND SKYLINE. I like the Vista, One Benner and Nema.

There really is no need for mega-talls in the States ..... IMO. Yes in Asia they are for symbolism. We build for profits. Dubai's tallest by Chicago Architectural from SOM. MADE NO PROFITS. Smaller ones built around it was where they made up the cost.

I'm fine with a new one passing Sears. Trump's Tower was suppose to originally as I noted before, but got scaled back. CHICGO IS DOING JUST FINE WITH THIS CURRENT BATCH OF TALL ONES.

Since my point on the Tribune one planned going up over that 30ft height to pass Sears. IS THE DEVELOPERS CHOICE. Whether they just don't want to or see SEARS passing isn't what they I'm for. Some may yet. IF YOUNG? Most of you have plenty of time to see.

Honestly for me I prefer quality vs. quantity or in this case height. I prefer to have buildings built like Aqua than just a bland supertall to claim we have the tallest.

[atler8]

Originally Posted by Chicago_Person

Right. Just a 30 foot decorative spire would make it the tallest.

But in thr u.s. the whole "tallest" mindset has gone away.
It's usually places trying to prove themselves that do it.

I fully agree with the 2-pronged thrust of your viewpoint as expressed here.

As for the earlier post that mentioned the "50 year" period of time since the Sears Tower took the title of Chicago's tallest, other cities in America have similarly seen their tallest tower situation stay stagnant, whether it be for a few decades or for only a couple. The upshot is that Chicago's situation is not uncommon.

As for example, I recently ran across an article from a few years ago that bemoaned the fact that Minneapolis's tallest height was achieved in 1972 at 774 or so feet and that 2 towers have since then come within a hair to surpassing that height but which have fallen just short of doing so.
There is hope for those who are height enthusiasts in Chicago given that such a period of stagnation (in terms of the "tallest" in the city) is not necessarily a permanent thing.
It's been only in the last few years that both SF and LA have shaken off their own static tallest situations and seen new giant buildings erected that took the tallest title.
In the case of SF, their Transamerica Tower was dethroned after having ruled there for around 40 years and in LA, their new title holder wrested away the title from a building that had been the tallest for a quarter of a century.
The bottom line is that eventually Chicago will see a new tallest title holder rise on it's skyline if and when the market dictates that such a tower be built. And all of us can hope that when that happens, it is a building of remarkable design that can live up to Chicago's own remarkable history of architectural heritage!

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by dtcbnd03

It has everything to do with the discussion since people were talking about falling behind NYC. The Sears Tower was built in 1970 with a population of 3.3M. Google image the Chicago skyline in 1970...now overlap it with the skyline of 2019....then consider the population has declined to 2.7M...there's no demand for megatalls because (as you agreed with me) Chicago has more space to build out and the numerous skyscrapers and supertalls that dot the skyline. NYC needs the 1500+ cause limited within Manhattan's borders and gradually growing population. Not to mention the numerous global wealth that buys there simply to park their money...hide it...or launder it. The demand for a 1500+ in Chicago just isn't there cause if it was it woulda been built by now. Plus as others have pointed out 9/11 fears and insurance costs aren't worth it...this is why Supreme Leader Tower was scaled back in height.

Population decline is happening on the fringes of the city in poor neighborhoods; these are people who wouldn't be buying luxury property, office space, and hotel rooms in any of these new, glossy tall buildings anyways, that's why I said that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Chicago is losing its poor population, not its rich population; that is actually growing. A common misconception that population numbers alone do not tell the full story.

I see what you mean though about space, NYC is more restricted in terms of land as it's already so developed, so developers are almost being forced to build up. But the population/demand part is where I disagree with you. Companies and wealthy people are moving into Chicago at a fast rate, so there is absolutely a demand for downtown office/residential/hotel space, and if a super/mega tall were to be built in Chicago, I don't think it would have trouble filling up.

[Koji7]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

The highlighted, this has nothing to do with the discussion here. You realize NYC has had a higher population than Chicago for the past century... but Chicago led not just NYC, but the world in skyscraper height?

Chicago can absolutely build taller, even considering a lower population than NYC. Again, from a historical standpoint, "tallest" skyscrapers are Chicago's game, not NYC's. And there is a lot more space to build in Chicago.

I saw on CTBUH NYC has 18 or 19 over 300 Meters and Chicago has 7.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by Koji7

I saw on CTBUH NYC has 18 or 19 over 300 Meters and Chicago has 7.

Sounds about right ..... NYC has 3-times the population of Chicago and over more then twice the metro +.

So the numbers come out right for total expected of each city. Bit mighty NYC should be much more.... Chicago isn't in the same tier. We all know this. No US city is.

Really, Chicago's CBD is not Manhattan, or if you split it by two CBD's. Then some call out Brooklyn and the Jersey sides with their own ... and on and on. Chicago is ONE CBD and no one tries to boast more.

But Chicago's Core does have land to redevelop as plans going out a coupe decades are started or planned. Former industrial tracks and warehousing areas as some. So what was a scare and separation of the downtown..... from neighborhoods in the past. Is a good thing now in available cleared land and still old warehousing areas.

NYC really needs no boasting ? Or does it ??

If not for the 07 08 crash. Chicago would have a COMPLETED 2000-footer completed for years. After all..... the Chicago Spire's foundation was already in before halted.

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by Koji7

I saw on CTBUH NYC has 18 or 19 over 300 Meters and Chicago has 7.

I was referring to tallest building period, not number of tall buildings. The tallest building in NYC is not much taller than the Sears Tower, especially taking out the spire. Obviously NYC has way more of, well, pretty much everything than Chicago, including sheer number of skyscrapers. Doesn't mean Chicago can't build taller.

[personone]

No way, no how this thing ever gets built. Get back to me when they actually break ground, which will be never!!!

[smegmatite]

Originally Posted by DavePa

If not for the 07 08 crash. Chicago would have a COMPLETED 2000-footer completed for years. After all..... the Chicago Spire's foundation was already in before halted.

If not for the amateur hour of a developer, the spire may have worked. The financial crisis certainly didn't help either... Too bad really, I loved that giant drill bit's design