Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People forget that skyscrapers cost money. They are well planned investment that needs to provide ROI. Glass boxes will always dominate skylines because glass enables the inhabitants to get light and see the views they themselves are investing in. It's also light weight and easy to replace when they get old. This can essentially refresh the life of the building every 20 years.
The box shape is due to the lots being square. If Chicago decided to design circle lots, you would see many circle shaped buildings. Developers are taking advantage of their land values. You notice that some of the innovations out of New York were built from necessity in order to take advantage of difficult plots of land like you see with the Pencil Towers.
Chicago doesn't have real estate values to support building super talls at the scale you see in NY. As for Dubai, well they have DEEEEEP pockets and everything there is basically fantasy. There was no demand for anyone to live in the desert. Dubai was a very expensive exercise in "Build it and they will come". The city sat nearly empty for many years.
Wolf Point East was a $360 million building. NEMA was $340 million. NEMA is 217' taller. More height equals more money is not a constant, there are many variables.
Chicago land values are rewarding enough that developers proposed 5 supertalls in one cycle.
One Chicago was approved at 1,046'. JDL decided to lower the east tower to 971' on their own volition. Obviously being 13' short of official super-tall designation or 29' short of 1,000' is not the threshold where the project is at peak feasibility and the extra height would have imposed exponentially more risk. It is simply a matter of developer ambition. They could have easily surpassed 1,000 feet and offset the added cost with concessions on the west tower or its gigantic podium but their priorities are what they are. Land value did not dictate those decisions.
In Vista's case Wanda's motivation was to construct a trophy tower with an innovative design from a world renowned architect for their debut in the U.S. real estate market. They executed their plan and the tower had no issues getting off the ground. It has strong sales, St. Regis for the hotel flag and Alinea Group for the restaurant operator. Anyone would consider that a success.
Wolf Point will be close to a billion dollars when it is said and done. Hines and the Kennedy's have every resource imaginable to pour into the development. Their ambition was not to build legacy towers. This does not mean that they couldn't have because the Chicago market does not provide the ability to do so. They limited their risk, another conscious choice by developers who could have opted to build almost anything there. They changed the south tower's programming to strictly office and reduced the height to 813'. Condos or a luxury hotel would have put it above 1,000' and with Salesforce secured as well as the location's proximity to the Loop and River North night-life it doesn't get more low-risk from a Chicago perspective. The opportunity was there, I think almost everyone who follows development was shocked when the plans were so relatively underwhelming.
Related's supertall proposal was scaled back due to alderman interference by Reilly issuing the no hotel component for that area doctrine.
The Landmark's Commission killed another supertall by ruling nothing above 900' could be built along the historic Michigan Ave. corridor.
As for glass boxes, there are infinite ways to make them interesting and unique, even inspiring. There are endless possibilities to make glass facades visually appealing. There are endless ways to manipulate or contort a rectangular structure to soften, or neutralize the presence of right angles. There are countless materials to integrate in countless ways to make something bold, extravagant, creative, expressive, elegant etc,.
What Chicago is doing is constructing glass-boxes overwhelmingly blue with aluminum accents. Minimal variations of slab forms, typical stepped-set-backs is about as thoughtful as it gets. Vertical fins, podiums, flat roofs, etc. Mies' influence is long lasting and clones of his have dominated Chicago for decades. His work and principles are sacred among academics and you can see his fingerprints all over these modern towers.
Sculpture and ornamentation aren't sacrosanct in Chicago any longer and they aren't returning anytime soon. New York is the only U.S. city where those practices are occurring. Related or Sterling Bay for example have the extra millions at their disposal for limestone, terracotta, brass and the like. Pre-Covid Chicago's demographics justified building taller and more high-end than any previous era where much better architecture was conceived. Chicago could certainly once again become relevant on the global scene. There needs to be some priority shifts. We were a hotel allowance away from two modern masterpieces.
There's a video of 111 W. 57th's developers on-site talking about the building on YouTube. These were dreamers that set out to redefine the New York skyline with the ultimate in quality and innovation. There's a video of Jim Letchinger talking about One Chicago as well. The difference between their statements and personality types is the difference between those design results.
Post-COVID, I guarantee none of these big buildings will end up getting built. It just doesn't make financial sense. Rents will be going down dramatically as companies realize how much they can do virtually. Many will still have hybrid schedules where people come to the office a couple days per week, but in no way will they pay the expensive rents they previously were. More people will also be moving outside of the city. Bottom line is, these large skyscrapers make no financial sense and they ultimately will not be built.
All 'One Chicago' needs is a SPIRE and it can even look like a antennae (check out the New World Trade Center one). It was originally to be a sleeker spire that looks like one I read. Then cost cuts changed that. Trump Tower Chicago also clearly could have been taller. Why cry over it.
Glory Towers are more for a Corporate power aspect. The Original Standard Oil was and of course .... Sears.
Like I mentioned before. How many fortune 500 companies give a rats... to have interest in a glory tower?
What city is using brass and granite or teracotta? Sure Chicago once did and NYC. In reality. Most built are not about stone skins in the world. Green towers and double-skins for energy efficiency and green terraces all over are. I agree ALL blue-green towers get boring. Some splattered add color among others. Look at Toronto for too many of them in fast-building for their growth needs. Even Miami has been getting them. I rather a white-color clad building. I was surprised to learn some years ago ... The Sears (Willis) considered painting the exterior white. Hard to imagine. If not built in its era that black-skin towers were in... maybe it would have been?
I await seeing the Willis base redo when I visit again. They kept to the black original modernism. I think no left plaza seems odd. Still, maintaining its original look I understand. We will see if Tribune East gets built in its current approved form? Timing not great till developers fee more secure in things getting back to some normalcy.
NYC could slow a bit or more? Again, time will tell. Its skinny-towers are not some special new wonder other cities will be copying. Cost are millions more then even Chicago. Even for residences in most.
Remember also. Chicago had height limits for half the 20th century. It go no supertalls then. Did it really miss out? Perhaps. We will never know.
I disagree with you young doubter-doomsayers why stay in Chicago yourselves. Try Texas if not back to California or suburbs yourselves. Do NYC as far far more awesome. It is its own beast and tier.
Each era and decade offers change to some degree. You learn to realize that and never say never. Chicago is not Miami that builds just by speculators investing money like what happened in Miami.
Slower periods does not mean all ends. It is what Chicago always had thru the decades. One might get thru and some end. Going in other threads as a Chicago transplant and boast NYC over Chicago evrn.... makes no sense to me as a Chicagoan. So be it. NYC has its own issues too.
Wolf Point East was a $360 million building. NEMA was $340 million. NEMA is 217' taller. More height equals more money is not a constant, there are many variables.
Chicago land values are rewarding enough that developers proposed 5 supertalls in one cycle.
One Chicago was approved at 1,046'. JDL decided to lower the east tower to 971' on their own volition. Obviously being 13' short of official super-tall designation or 29' short of 1,000' is not the threshold where the project is at peak feasibility and the extra height would have imposed exponentially more risk. It is simply a matter of developer ambition. They could have easily surpassed 1,000 feet and offset the added cost with concessions on the west tower or its gigantic podium but their priorities are what they are. Land value did not dictate those decisions.
In Vista's case Wanda's motivation was to construct a trophy tower with an innovative design from a world renowned architect for their debut in the U.S. real estate market. They executed their plan and the tower had no issues getting off the ground. It has strong sales, St. Regis for the hotel flag and Alinea Group for the restaurant operator. Anyone would consider that a success.
Wolf Point will be close to a billion dollars when it is said and done. Hines and the Kennedy's have every resource imaginable to pour into the development. Their ambition was not to build legacy towers. This does not mean that they couldn't have because the Chicago market does not provide the ability to do so. They limited their risk, another conscious choice by developers who could have opted to build almost anything there. They changed the south tower's programming to strictly office and reduced the height to 813'. Condos or a luxury hotel would have put it above 1,000' and with Salesforce secured as well as the location's proximity to the Loop and River North night-life it doesn't get more low-risk from a Chicago perspective. The opportunity was there, I think almost everyone who follows development was shocked when the plans were so relatively underwhelming.
Related's supertall proposal was scaled back due to alderman interference by Reilly issuing the no hotel component for that area doctrine.
The Landmark's Commission killed another supertall by ruling nothing above 900' could be built along the historic Michigan Ave. corridor.
As for glass boxes, there are infinite ways to make them interesting and unique, even inspiring. There are endless possibilities to make glass facades visually appealing. There are endless ways to manipulate or contort a rectangular structure to soften, or neutralize the presence of right angles. There are countless materials to integrate in countless ways to make something bold, extravagant, creative, expressive, elegant etc,.
What Chicago is doing is constructing glass-boxes overwhelmingly blue with aluminum accents. Minimal variations of slab forms, typical stepped-set-backs is about as thoughtful as it gets. Vertical fins, podiums, flat roofs, etc. Mies' influence is long lasting and clones of his have dominated Chicago for decades. His work and principles are sacred among academics and you can see his fingerprints all over these modern towers.
Sculpture and ornamentation aren't sacrosanct in Chicago any longer and they aren't returning anytime soon. New York is the only U.S. city where those practices are occurring. Related or Sterling Bay for example have the extra millions at their disposal for limestone, terracotta, brass and the like. Pre-Covid Chicago's demographics justified building taller and more high-end than any previous era where much better architecture was conceived. Chicago could certainly once again become relevant on the global scene. There needs to be some priority shifts. We were a hotel allowance away from two modern masterpieces.
There's a video of 111 W. 57th's developers on-site talking about the building on YouTube. These were dreamers that set out to redefine the New York skyline with the ultimate in quality and innovation. There's a video of Jim Letchinger talking about One Chicago as well. The difference between their statements and personality types is the difference between those design results.
My point is that there is a real cost in doing business. People neglect to think about the nuances and difficulties of making ornamental design decisions. Softening corners or adding step backs, etc, all cost a ton more money in both the engineering and construction of these towers. To "soften" the corners as you say, would deduct from the overall sq feet within each floor. With the average sale price of units around $200 a square foot the developers most certainly take any design considerations like this into account.
Again, all of this rests on the ultimate goal which is to turn a profit. It's much easier to turn a profit on these towers in cities like NY where the average price per square foot is $1,800 which is why you tend to see more unique elements being included. It's also a win win for them out there because the highrise market is so competitive so they will do anything to differentiate themselves.
It sucks, but it's simply easier and cheaper to build glass boxes. I'm not saying Chicago can't be innovative with their material and designs, just that the investment doesn't support it or Chicago area developers are unwilling to risk the additional cost.
Generally speaking more height does equate to more money. More money in materials, more in insurance, and more in maintenance/upkeep. Like anything the fixtures and amenities can add to the overall price but if you have two of the same towers with one being taller, it seems obvious the taller tower would cost more in the short term AND the long term.
My point is that there is a real cost in doing business. People neglect to think about the nuances and difficulties of making ornamental design decisions. Softening corners or adding step backs, etc, all cost a ton more money in both the engineering and construction of these towers. To "soften" the corners as you say, would deduct from the overall sq feet within each floor. With the average sale price of units around $200 a square foot the developers most certainly take any design considerations like this into account.
Again, all of this rests on the ultimate goal which is to turn a profit. It's much easier to turn a profit on these towers in cities like NY where the average price per square foot is $1,800 which is why you tend to see more unique elements being included. It's also a win win for them out there because the highrise market is so competitive so they will do anything to differentiate themselves.
It sucks, but it's simply easier and cheaper to build glass boxes. I'm not saying Chicago can't be innovative with their material and designs, just that the investment doesn't support it or Chicago area developers are unwilling to risk the additional cost.
Generally speaking more height does equate to more money. More money in materials, more in insurance, and more in maintenance/upkeep. Like anything the fixtures and amenities can add to the overall price but if you have two of the same towers with one being taller, it seems obvious the taller tower would cost more in the short term AND the long term.
Agree with all this. Developers were saying this BEFORE the pandemic. It is even more of a reality now. There will be no more super tall buildings for the next decade plus because they don’t make financial sense. They didn’t before the pandemic and they certainly don’t now. People are kidding themselves and are in for a rude awakening if they think any of these buildings will actually get built.
Agree with all this. Developers were saying this BEFORE the pandemic. It is even more of a reality now. There will be no more super tall buildings for the next decade plus because they don’t make financial sense. They didn’t before the pandemic and they certainly don’t now. People are kidding themselves and are in for a rude awakening if they think any of these buildings will actually get built.
I think you wish for this too much. It is important to only a few. Still one supertall to go is approved in the Tribune East Tower. If it gets build even if delayed.... then what? Predictions have a way of nipping some in the butt. Then it is downplayed or fogotton.
It really no big deal. Your former LA is not getting any either. NYC is another tier yet still hurting a bit. Sunbelt cites are no bastion of super-tall hopefuls. I am not sure why only a couple seem to go into other threads to claim Chicago in decline yet remain there. Sure if a local have your reservations. Still direct predictions serve whom?
We all can do that if we so choose. Still we need this pandemic to end. Less WFH and a return of Conventions to Tourist to see if normalcy in most aspects can return. I say return to LA or try NYC or Atlanta or DFW or Houston and attach to a city you see moving forward, upward and outward far more then Chicago and is a city on the make and growing. Always best to aim high and not remain where you feel it is not going to be in a positive mode on C-D in threads that is not even merely Political.
Wish you well in your new city to come. No use remaining in a declining one. St Regis (Vista) Chicago won't be the last super-tall. Just others might get a delay and smaller projects and buildings be seen as less risky as more likely to get built. Especially like in the West Loop and South Loop.
My point is that there is a real cost in doing business. People neglect to think about the nuances and difficulties of making ornamental design decisions. Softening corners or adding step backs, etc, all cost a ton more money in both the engineering and construction of these towers. To "soften" the corners as you say, would deduct from the overall sq feet within each floor. With the average sale price of units around $200 a square foot the developers most certainly take any design considerations like this into account.
Again, all of this rests on the ultimate goal which is to turn a profit. It's much easier to turn a profit on these towers in cities like NY where the average price per square foot is $1,800 which is why you tend to see more unique elements being included. It's also a win win for them out there because the highrise market is so competitive so they will do anything to differentiate themselves.
It sucks, but it's simply easier and cheaper to build glass boxes. I'm not saying Chicago can't be innovative with their material and designs, just that the investment doesn't support it or Chicago area developers are unwilling to risk the additional cost.
Generally speaking more height does equate to more money. More money in materials, more in insurance, and more in maintenance/upkeep. Like anything the fixtures and amenities can add to the overall price but if you have two of the same towers with one being taller, it seems obvious the taller tower would cost more in the short term AND the long term.
Related commissioned David Childs to design and Bill Baker to engineer the buildings on the former Chicago Spire site. Childs speaks to his inspirations being the people of Chicago's devotion to architecture and our rich masonry tradition. The design was the antithesis of a slab. Related said specifically that this project was about honoring "legacy." That is a totally different ambition than max ROI and why we saw such elegant and thoughtful structures.
Related would have never frivolously spent the money that these elites of their field demand for a visionary concept that wasn't rooted in practicality. After all the number crunching and market analysis they calculated the risk to be acceptable and presented their plan to the city. When the edict was issued that they couldn't include a luxury hotel flag that was to account for over 200' of the project and a substantial amount of projected profit they redesigned the development over a 2 year period.
We see with the current iteration many cost cutting measures that places the project in an entirely different category in terms of impact and quality. In this situation, originally they understood that the location is prominent. It has a storied past where a once bold vision for the world's tallest building with a revolutionary design comes attached to it which brings certain expectations as well as a Jeanne Gang designed building being within close proximity which they would have to compete with for tenants/customers. These factors raised the profile from their typical design standard. The city/Reilly made a conscious decision that gravely impacted the significance of the proposal.
Like I said these are choices on the behalf of developers. They can shrewdly build reductive architecture in a race to build the most unoriginal buildings possible or they could understand that they are defining the cityscape and skyline which is Chicago's greatest asset for generations to come and find inspiration to innovate and leave behind a rich legacy even at the sacrifice of maximizing profits once in a while. We are not L.A. or Toronto that lacks a history of skyscraper and architectural supremacy.
If it was as black & white as Chicago is not a good market for innovative architecture due to real estate values and construction costs we wouldn't be the city that we are with the endless examples of superior design. Wolf Point will be around $1 billion if not over that figure when its done. With that amount of money there are endless possibilities. They chose a very conservative option. I will never believe luxury condo units at the river confluence next to the Loop and River North in a supertall wouldn't sell for exorbitant amounts.
I think you wish for this too much. It is important to only a few. Still one supertall to go is approved in the Tribune East Tower. If it gets build even if delayed.... then what? Predictions have a way of nipping some in the butt. Then it is downplayed or fogotton.
It really no big deal. Your former LA is not getting any either. NYC is another tier yet still hurting a bit. Sunbelt cites are no bastion of super-tall hopefuls. I am not sure why only a couple seem to go into other threads to claim Chicago in decline yet remain there. Sure if a local have your reservations. Still direct predictions serve whom?
We all can do that if we so choose. Still we need this pandemic to end. Less WFH and a return of Conventions to Tourist to see if normalcy in most aspects can return. I say return to LA or try NYC or Atlanta or DFW or Houston and attach to a city you see moving forward, upward and outward far more then Chicago and is a city on the make and growing. Always best to aim high and not remain where you feel it is not going to be in a positive mode on C-D in threads that is not even merely Political.
Wish you well in your new city to come. No use remaining in a declining one. St Regis (Vista) Chicago won't be the last super-tall. Just others might get a delay and smaller projects and buildings be seen as less risky as more likely to get built. Especially like in the West Loop and South Loop.
I have never lived in LA. I will not be leaving Chicago. This is my home. There will be no new super tall built in Chicago.
All 'One Chicago' needs is a SPIRE and it can even look like a antennae (check out the New World Trade Center one). It was originally to be a sleeker spire that looks like one I read. Then cost cuts changed that. Trump Tower Chicago also clearly could have been taller. Why cry over it.
Glory Towers are more for a Corporate power aspect. The Original Standard Oil was and of course .... Sears.
Like I mentioned before. How many fortune 500 companies give a rats... to have interest in a glory tower?
What city is using brass and granite or teracotta? Sure Chicago once did and NYC. In reality. Most built are not about stone skins in the world. Green towers and double-skins for energy efficiency and green terraces all over are. I agree ALL blue-green towers get boring. Some splattered add color among others. Look at Toronto for too many of them in fast-building for their growth needs. Even Miami has been getting them. I rather a white-color clad building. I was surprised to learn some years ago ... The Sears (Willis) considered painting the exterior white. Hard to imagine. If not built in its era that black-skin towers were in... maybe it would have been?
I await seeing the Willis base redo when I visit again. They kept to the black original modernism. I think no left plaza seems odd. Still, maintaining its original look I understand. We will see if Tribune East gets built in its current approved form? Timing not great till developers fee more secure in things getting back to some normalcy.
NYC could slow a bit or more? Again, time will tell. Its skinny-towers are not some special new wonder other cities will be copying. Cost are millions more then even Chicago. Even for residences in most.
Remember also. Chicago had height limits for half the 20th century. It go no supertalls then. Did it really miss out? Perhaps. We will never know.
I disagree with you young doubter-doomsayers why stay in Chicago yourselves. Try Texas if not back to California or suburbs yourselves. Do NYC as far far more awesome. It is its own beast and tier.
Each era and decade offers change to some degree. You learn to realize that and never say never. Chicago is not Miami that builds just by speculators investing money like what happened in Miami.
Slower periods does not mean all ends. It is what Chicago always had thru the decades. One might get thru and some end. Going in other threads as a Chicago transplant and boast NYC over Chicago evrn.... makes no sense to me as a Chicagoan. So be it. NYC has its own issues too.
I'm well aware of Chicago's history and if you do some research I have highlighted many times in NY vs. Chicago threads that zoning laws and height restrictions in Chicago gave NY 70 years of height thresholds being surpassed unanswered by the one city that had the demand and technology to equal or surpass them from the beginning. Chicago was building 300' when NY struggled to surpass 16 stories. It was Chicago that banned tenements and mid & high-rise residential until Marina City in 1964. NY never had these restrictions and took the exact opposite approach to providing housing explaining the vast difference in pre-war height/density between the two.
I know how much you think height is some petty, unimportant characteristic of a building's design but it was building taller that gave birth to the "skyscraper" and the desire to progress remains today.
If you believe tall buildings to be so non-essential to a city's profile do yourself a favor and view pictures of Chicago pre-Hancock and post. Pre-Sears and post. Pre-Vista and Post. See if you can realize what they provide for their surroundings and in aggregate for the city in general.
Look at Manhattan in 2008 and 2020. Shang-Hai in 1990 and 2020. Go back and read threads between 2000 and 2008 and see how many Toronto posters are saying it ranks above Chicago. See how many people had Dubai in their top ten cities list in the 1990's.
Report back your conclusions here when you're finished.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
