Another Huge Downtown Condo/Hotel Tower is Announced: The Tribune Tower Plan
[Golub & Co and CIM Group rendering]
Since the Tribune Tower, and the adjacent lot were sold, the Chicago design community has been waiting for an announcement on the plans for the prominent Michigan Avenue/Streeterville site.
Yesterday, Golub & Company and CIM Group, announced their plans for the site at a community meeting which was meant to encourage enthusiasm and answer concerns of those living in the neighborhood.
Here’s the breakdown:
- Historic Tribune Tower with the WGN building will be 163 condos and ground floor retail. Occupation of Tribune Tower is expected as soon as 2020.
- The new tower would be 1422 feet tall and will be built on the adjacent empty lot. It would have 200 hotel rooms, 439 apartments and 125 condos. Construction wouldn’t begin until the end of 2019.
The new tower would be the second tallest building in the city, residential or otherwise.
This is a $1 billion project.
And the price points for condo units are higher than most people in Chicago could ever hope to pay at over $1,000 per square feet.
It also sounds like they will be sized as family homes, averaging, for example, 3,000 square feet in the historic tower.
From the Tribune:
As the saga of the unbuilt Chicago Spire shows, it is easier to announce plans for a supertall skyscraper than to finance and build one. Complicating matters for Golub and CIM Group, other developers already have mega-towers underway or approved, most notably the 1,191-foot Vista Tower, a hotel and condominium high-rise under construction across the Chicago River from the Tribune site.
The bigger question, nearly a decade into the city’s post-recession real estate boom, is whether the expansion will still have steam more than a year from now, when the new tower is scheduled to start construction.
Undeterred by the risks, Golub cited the project’s unique location, expressing hope it would lure international buyers.
“We are on Michigan Avenue. We are on the river. We are in the center of everything here,” he said.
Condos in both buildings would sell at prices at or near the top of the Chicago market — more than $1,000 a square foot, Golub predicted. With condos in the new building and Tribune Tower expected to average 3,000 square feet and 2,700 square feet, respectively, that means many condominiums would fetch prices in excess of $3 million.
Not only would the very richest in Chicago, and from around the world, call these buildings home, but many of the public spaces in the historic Tribune Tower will also probably be restricted.
It has yet to be determined how much access tourists and architecture buffs would have to the ornate, high-ceilinged Tribune Tower lobby, which has official landmark protection. Golub said a compromise will have to be reached regarding which hours, if any, the lobby would be open to visitors.
The 25th-floor outdoor space beneath Tribune Tower’s flying buttresses, once an observatory open to the public and now a private event space called The Crown, will become an outdoor amenity area for residents.
The location of some of the roughly 150 fragments of famous buildings and historic sites from around the world that are embedded in Tribune Tower’s base could be shifted to accommodate the new ground-floor retail space.
These are boom times. The stock market is near record highs.
There are several hundred luxury condos already going up from One Bennett Place, the Vista and 1000 S. Michigan which is about to break ground.
But is this building coming too late in the boom cycle?
Is it doomed if a recession hits?
Or will it sell out the historic structure, but never make it to building the new tower on the empty lot?
When Trump Tower was built, it was considered an A building at a B location.
Has the perception of south Michigan Avenue and the River completely changed in the last 10 years?
Developers plan city’s second tallest skyscraper next to the new Tribune Tower condos [Chicago Tribune, by Blair Kamin and Ryan Ori, April 16, 2018]
If I was paying $1000/sf, I dont think I would look at a building that had apartments even if they were completely separated.
While this location is much better than it used to be for residential living (in my opinion), I think I would choose another location if I was paying $1,000/sf.
I think the high end condo market is a game of musical chairs. Building a mid-priced product, while more challenging with construction costs, would be the best demand product in my opinion.
how does that even work with apartments being 80% of the units… how does one get financing with that sort of arrangement?
And why do these dumb developers think that rich people want to share a lobby or amenities with hotel guests? Just blows my mind how out of touch and stupid they are sometimes
“how does one get financing with that sort of arrangement?”
Silly Sonies, rich people don’t have the same challenges the rest of us do. they have private bankers and personal accountants to figure all that out for them.
oh, right! As an Obama dubbed rich person how could I forget!
“And why do these dumb developers think that rich people want to share a lobby or amenities with hotel guests?”
If they’re smart, they would have separate lobbies like Trump tower.
“And why do these dumb developers think that rich people want to share a lobby or amenities with hotel guests? Just blows my mind how out of touch and stupid they are sometimes”
It works for the Aqua, Trump Tower, and Drake Tower. It’s not what I would choose (well, exception for the Drake Tower), but rich people seem to like that lifestyle.
CRAY CRAY BABY!
GO CUBBIES!!!!!
“how does that even work with apartments being 80% of the units… how does one get financing with that sort of arrangement?”
Why not? If the equity is there and the budget works, it doesn’t matter. The apartments are probably contained within a condo, if that makes it sound better.
Is having condos and (I assume regular long term) apartments in the same building, by design, odd? Is there another example in Chicago?
I hesitate to jump to conclusions based on a drawing but that tower would potentially ruin a historic cityscape at Michigan and the river. I hope it isn’t as conspicuous as that drawing makes it appear.
I agree with Dan, Im not against the design, even if it looks a little Shenzen ca. 2005, but not at that location. Wanda and Aqua are already visualy jarring enough for that corridor. Chicago’s boxy squares all work well together to form a “look” that these new towers are just stompling on to say “look at me”, they lack the Chicago character. Id prefer to see this or something like this more in the South Loop where they are still building their urban architectural identity.
“I hesitate to jump to conclusions based on a drawing but that tower would potentially ruin a historic cityscape at Michigan and the river.”
What historic cityscape?
If you read the Tribune article, it says they moved the building back 35 feet in order to not disrupt the view of the Tribune Tower from the Ogden slip to the east.
“Is having condos and (I assume regular long term) apartments in the same building, by design, odd? Is there another example in Chicago?”
It’s not odd. It’s the only way to get the building paid for now. Banks will give out construction loans for that because they know the apartments can be filled.
Aqua is the last completed big building that has this mix. But 1000 s Michigan also has the apartments/condo combo. I think they intend to break ground soon with that building.
Hi Sabrina,
Just to clarify, 1000 S Michigan is all condos, around 323 units, and about 10% sold, a bit more actually.
Ground breaking may occur in 2019.
https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/4/9/17206000/south-loop-1000m-condo-construction-update
The economy is booming and has plenty of room to run (mild, short, Federal reserve induced recession in 2021). With corporate relocations, larger paychecks, and tax cuts for upper middle class renters, this building will get the loan it needs for construction just like One Chicago square at state and Chicago. I can’t say the same thing about 1000 S Michigan since it is entirely condos and rising property taxes due to pension shortfalls may scuttle a B location that one has in the south loop. This one here and One Chicago square are A locations.
Great observation about the skyline, Marko, and I agree. If you want an example of how these sort of “me-too” buildings can ruin a skyline take a look at Manhattan. I don’t remember the name of the building, but some ego-maniac developer built a 90-story tower near 59th and Park that’s so skinny it looks like the next hurricane might blow it over. It looms over nearby buildings like the Chrysler Building and pretty much draws all the attention to its awkward pencil-like profile. Ugh.
“some ego-maniac developer built a 90-story tower near 59th and Park that’s so skinny”
432 Park. CIM Group. Same crew as this proposal.
And Macklowe tore down the (awesome) NY Drake to end up with that.
“I can’t say the same thing about 1000 S Michigan since it is entirely condos and rising property taxes due to pension shortfalls may scuttle a B location that one has in the south loop. This one here and One Chicago square are A locations.”
I didn’t realize that 1000 S Michigan was only condos. How daring of them!
Curbed reported last week that they may try and break ground next year though which means sales are good.
https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/4/9/17206000/south-loop-1000m-condo-construction-update
The other “big” projects like the Holy Name Cathedral site (sorry, can’t call it “One Chicago Square” just yet because it’s too LAME) all have apartments and/or hotels with them so they can get the loans.
One Bennett Place has apartments too, doesn’t it? It went up quickly.