Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 * New Thompson Center plan pushed

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* I’ve lost track of the number of developers who’ve promised to erect the tallest building in Chicago over the years, including, if memory serves, Donald Trump.

Aside from that, selling the Thompson Center and developing the property makes some sense to me. Downtown is full of construction cranes, so the market is hot and property like this doesn’t come around very often…

The state legislature’s GOP leaders, Sen. Christine Radogno and Rep. Jim Durkin, are once again introducing legislation that would allow the state to sell the 16-story, 1.2 million-square-foot structure and move state workers to leased space in other buildings, Durkin said.

This time around, the state’s Department of Central Management Services is providing specific estimates of how much a sale of the Thompson Center would boost the state’s finances. A sale would generate potential net proceeds of $220 million and would prevent the state from addressing $326 million in deferred maintenance on the building, according to CMS. […]

One rendering shows a 115-story, 1,700-foot-tall tower that would be the city’s tallest, topping the 1,451-foot Willis Tower. The tower would include offices, retail, residential units, a hotel and an observation deck. A second plan would have buildings of 40, 60 and 70 stories with mixed uses. […]

The estimated cost to repair the Thompson Center is more than triple the $100 million in deferred maintenance that Rauner first cited in 2015. Commercial real estate experts also say the state would be hard-pressed to get even half of its estimated $220 million net proceeds in a sale, since a buyer would still face extensive demolition costs just to clear the site and start a new development.

Putting the property into private hands would also generate a bunch of property tax revenue for the city.

*** UPDATE *** From Ald. Brendan Reilly, whose 42nd Ward includes the Thompson Center…

I stand ready to meet with the Administration to discuss zoning limitations & redevelopment parameters for the property before they market it for auction. Potential buyers will want a general sense of what can and cannot be done on that site before they would bid on the property at auction.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:38 pm

Comments

Now we are talking.

Comment by blue dog dem Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:41 pm
I am all for the sale of the property.
It is functionally obsolete and should be torn down.

I find it hard to believe a sale price as high as $220 million.

Comment by MOON Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:46 pm
Please bring back the golden voiced Sen John Sullivan to auction it off to the highest/dumbest bidder. What the JTC needs is a truck full of TNT and a deep pocketed, forward thinking developer.

Comment by the Cardinal Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:51 pm
== I find it hard to believe a sale price as high as $220 million. ==

That estimate is brought to you by the same people figuring the pension savings in the State budget!

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:54 pm
This property should be sold - even if it comes in at break even on the sale, it would still be a home run vs fixing it.

Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:54 pm
What happened to the first plan?

Comment by Liberty Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:00 pm
Give it up for $.05, and count our blessings.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:13 pm
The problem with an auction is the problem that Alderman Reilly referenced — unless they are going to work with existing zoning, the new buyer needs to get things lined with the alderman before making the investment.

I would like to see a sale, but in a million years would never tell a client to bid on it unless the alderman approved the general framework for the new building. An auction would be too risky.

On the other hand, simply putting it on the market would be a better idea. Allow a developer to work though all the due diligence and then make the final commitment.

Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:17 pm
The Thompson Center is a boil that must be lanced. Seeing as I work across the street and use the L station connected to it every day, however, I don’t look forward to the work that must be done.

The sacrifices I make for you people. Sell it, tear it down (preferably in some sort of awesome implosion), and put something aesthetically pleasing and useful there.

Comment by AlfondoGonz Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:32 pm
I walk through there with some frequency to get to the L. It is pretty shabby. Are there costs associated with any related changes to the L station, though? Could it stay there? If not, how much to move it.

Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:40 pm
I hope they show the cost of rent for the large number of state employees

Comment by James the Intolerant Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:43 pm
===Potential buyers will want a general sense of what can and cannot be done on that site before they would bid on the property at auction.===

Please make checks payable to Citizens for Alderman Reilly.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:43 pm
47th, I’ve done work in the 42nd Ward for years.

I routinely deal with his office.

Not once have I felt any pressure to make a contribution.

Reilly has an open and transparent process. He gets the developer involved, if there is a neighborhood group (RNNA, SOAR, others) he gets feedback from that group, and he makes a decision.

That’s the process.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:47 pm
Has the sale been cleared with the Standing Beast?

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:48 pm
Selling it is also a way to dislocate and get rid of a lot of state workers through “geographical relocation”. Basically your job is now in Springfield. Look to see a lot of tier 1 workers get nailed by that.

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:51 pm
No alderman should have that much influence over zoning. The “rules” in Chicago that delegate so much authority to the aldermen are ridiculous - just ask the Cubs.

Comment by KAA-boom Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:55 pm
===That’s the process.===

Easy there Anonymous commenter. He’s an Alderman, I was making a joke.

On the other hand, does he really think he alone is going to dictate what will or won’t be built on this site? His statement was a bit presumptuous, don’t you think?

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:56 pm
KAA-Boom,

Many people believe in local control of development. They think the neighborhood, rather than the Mayor’s office, knows what is best on a block by block basis.

Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:01 pm
Even if they don’t move anything, I see potential significant disruptions to public transit while demolition and building take place. And folks don’t like long-term disruptions to public transit, especially if they would appear to be in the service of more, er, plutocracy.

Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:03 pm
If they do a controlled explosion, then someone should sell tickets.

But seriously, this sounds like it could be a win for most parties involved.

Comment by Chicago_Downstater Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:11 pm
Sell it with a gaming license attached to it. Casino companies have the money to renovate it into a hotel casino complex.

Comment by Porgy Tirebiter Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:28 pm
Should the state actually sell the land? Or should they lease it to a developer? Not that private developers really want the Thompson Center or that the state can afford to erect something in its place that private developers would want. But is a sale in place of a land/development agreement really what’s best?

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:45 pm
The building is a monstrosity and it has never worked for its intended purpose. The old State of Illinois Building is still in use because it has offices for many employees who were unable to work at the Thompson Center which lacked sufficient space.

Seriously, I think Edgar rushed through the proposal to rename the building for Thompson in order to inform posterity that he was not the governor responsible for this eyesore.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:48 pm
I know if we keep at it, we will find $2.3 billion in savings and i can shut up and take a small tax hike.

Comment by Blue dog dem Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 4:17 pm
Translation: “zoning limitations” means “we’ll downzone it to a park if the Governor keeps shafting the City”

Comment by vibes Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 4:30 pm
The site has some of the best mass transit access in the City. There is direct access to the train lines going to Midway (Orange line) and O’Hare (Blue line). Plus Pink, Brown, Green and Purple line access. I could see it as a good spot for hotel, pied-a-terres/apartments/condos, and office space.

Comment by Chicago Guy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 5:33 pm
That Dubuffet structure is gonna look swell on the Capitol lawn.

PC, a land lease really isn’t in the State’s best interest here. First of all, the State would have to tear it down and provide a clean site. We’re spending scarce money, a lot of it, before we see a dime of rent on a lease that is likely to run for decades.

Let’s not forget the CTA station and Pedway connections that can’t be shut down for years while changes take place.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 5:40 pm
Make it a casino.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 5:41 pm
You can’t blow it up without destroying 5 train lines. It will be really hard to keep transit running while building around it. But no, you can’t blow it up. Try another silly remark.

Comment by Joe Biden Was Here Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 5:42 pm
Pass a Budget…this is a low level concern

Comment by State of the State Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 7:20 pm
Even if the building is given away it is on the plus side of the pendulum since the State will no longer be responsible for the deferred maintenance.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 7:22 pm
I believe that if the State retains ownership of the land, Chicago regulations will not apply. Also there are no city or county property taxes.

Would like to have some lawyers check if I am correct.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 7:34 pm
This is a diversionary story by Rauner’s press team and it. Will. Never. Happen.

Comment by Newsclown Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 10:33 pm
Like the idea of leasing the land to a mega casino

Comment by cannon649 Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:39 pm