Sears Tower no longer has name, nor any height designations of significance

The one-time Sears Tower, which clings to that name in the mindset of many Chicagoans, is truly a piece of the Second City’s past.

One-time Sears Tower still towers over rest of Chicago

It has been some 23 years since the building was the “world’s tallest” structure, and five years since it could claim to be the tallest towering hulk of architecture on the North American continent.

NOW, IT CAN’T even claim to have the highest ceiling.

For it seems that New York, which had its One World Trade Center knock the former Sears from the continent’s tallest building now has another new skyscraper that will knock former Sears down another peg.

For it seems the new Central Park Tower will have a ceiling at 1,550 feet – compared to the 1,451-foot ceiling of the building officially known as the Willis Tower.

But which many of us still cling to the old name, and also like to pretend that somehow, on some sort of level, it’s still really the tallest something or other in the world.

FOR THAT WAS the designation it held from its opening in 1973 until 23 years later, the Middle Eastern countries in desperate need of something of significance elected to build taller structures for office space.

Trump Tower looms over da Loop

And then the World Trade Center got replaced with a towering structure in 2014 that technically is only bigger than former Sears because of the spiraling tower that puts its peak at 1,776 feet high. As in a political statement – even though the top 400 or so feet don’t actually add any space of use to people.

Of course, there is one plus – former Sears is still the tallest in Chicago. It didn’t get topped by the Trump Tower with its roof at 1,171 feet high and a spiral peaking at 1,388 feet.

Don’t forget that Trump originally envisioned his tower in Chicago to be a new “world’s tallest” structure – only to have activity that destroyed the original World Trade Center cause him to scale back his vision.

WHICH ALWAYS MADE me thankful that Trump himself didn’t try to erect a statue of himself atop the spiral’s point. It would be just like The Donald himself to want his image sky-high and looking down upon the rest of us.

Making it susceptible to the next tornado that inevitably touches down within the downtown city limits – something that hasn’t happened in some 200-plus years.

Just envision Trump’s image being ripped from the roof and sent flying through the skies – perhaps out into Lake Michigan where it gradually sinks to the lake’s deepest point of 922 feet.

However apropos that would be.

  -30-

We’re No. 1 (for now, at least)!

I can remember being a kid some several decades ago in Chicago – listening to the boasts that the civic-minded of us used to tell about our home city. 

From back in the day when O'Hare really was No. 1!!!

We had both the World’s Tallest Building and the World’s Busiest Airport.

NEITHER OF WHICH is true any longer. Particularly with the “tallest building” claim, as the one-time Sears Tower now bears a non-descript moniker and is surpassed by structures in New York, along with the Middle East.

But as for the “airport” claim, we were sort of able to reclaim that title for O’Hare International Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration this week reported there were 903,000 arrivals and departures that passed through our city’s airport named for the aviation war hero son of an attorney who ultimately cooperated with ‘G-men’ in the busting of gangster Al Capone.

That total is more than the number of people who passed through Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport – the facility that has been number one for the past two decades.

Does this mean Chicago has “reclaimed” its “rightful” position atop the nation’s aviation routes? That more people are choosing Chicago instead of that overgrown Southern hick town that hosted the Super Bowl game that left so much of the nation’s football fans in a funk (be honest, nobody with sense roots for New England).

NOT REALLY!

For one thing, this figure is just for the number of flights that used the airport – not the number of people. By that standard, Atlanta still passed Chicago O’Hare in terms of individuals who passed through their facility last year. Some 83.4 million for O’Hare, compared to 104 million through Atlanta.

Plus, there’s also the fact that Chicago’s figures throughout the years that O’Hare was atop the airport rankings were always inflated because of the fact that airlines were creatures of travel habit.

O'HARE: The reason it's not still known as Orchard Field

Just as Chicago was a national transit hub when passenger trains were the common mode of travel and all routes passed through the Second City, the airlines tended to think of Chicago in the same way.

AS IN THEIR flights all converged on Chicago

So many people traveling from one part of the country to another found they had to make a stopover in Chicago before transferring to a connecting flight to take them to the place they really wanted to get to.

Now, with routes determined less by planted train track, other airports have served that same “connecting route” purpose – with the airport for Dallas/Fort Worth in particular taking on much of that “transferring flight” role.

Which is kind of a relief. I’d hate to think there were actually growing numbers of people in our society who felt some need to actually spend some time in Texas. In all honesty, if not for the fact I have an aunt and cousins who live in San Antonio, I doubt I’d give the “Lone Star State” a second thought.

JUST AS I’M sure there are generations past for whom the only time they ever spent in Chicago was during the time they were overcharged at airport concessions while waiting for a connecting flight.

They probably never saw any more of Chicago than the terminal used by whichever airline they chose for their particular flight.

It's still "tallest" in Chicago

Although considering that airlines tack on a fee to the price of tickets to cover the cost of the fees the airports charge for use, it means Chicago gained some tax income from all those travelers who never had the common sense to make Chicago their final destination.

With this 4.2 percent increase for the past year, we in Chicago can once again claim (for however a short a time period until the FAA issues updated statistics) that we’re “Number One!” atop the number of flights. Now if we can only figure out a way to add on a few dozen more stories to the tragically-named Willis Tower, we could go about reclaiming that “tallest building” title for Chicago as well.

  -30-

Ever-changing scene that is Chicago

This is most definitely a scene from Chicago’s past.

Chicago's appearance is ever-changing. Photograph by Chuckman's Chicago Nostalgia

This particular photograph depicts what used to be in terms of the proximity of our city’s newspapers being published so close to each other.

THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS the old Field Enterprises building that housed the Chicago Sun-Times until they sold it off about a decade ago to Donald Trump – who erected that ugly tower that looms over downtown Chicago in an ominous fashion.

Which is particularly notable because people used to become amateur architectural critics in bashing about the old Sun-Times building (it looked like a barge or garbage scowl, they’d say).

It seems Trump has come up with something even more despised in appearance than the old Sun-Times building.

To the right, just the other side of the Wrigley Building that Frank Sinatra made reference to in his unofficial city anthem, “My Kind of Town, Chicago Is,” is the Tribune Tower.

THAT EDIFICE ERECTED back in the mid-1920s from which Col. Robert R. McCormick ruled his newspaper empire and his vision that “Chicagoland” (stretching from Detroit to Kansas City) was a unique version of our nation that made far more sense than anything occurring on any coastal point of the United States.

Tribune's new home come '18. Photos by Gregory Tejeda

It used to be from these points about one block apart along the Chicago River that our city’s two major newspapers (and as you can see from this particular photograph, the Chicago Daily News was part of the mix as well) did their part to help create the character of our city – for better or for worse.

Soon, it’s only going to be a memory that either newspaper was ever in such a prominent place along the riverfront.

The Sun-Times, of course, moved a few blocks west along the river several years ago to the building that was the annex to the Merchandise Mart. Even that building is becoming history.

THIS WEEKEND IS when the newspaper is leaving the location for a site in the West Loop. At 30. N. Racine Ave., they’ll be out of downtown altogether.

What will become of Alamo, Comiskey Park bricks?

While the Chicago Tribune reported Friday that they, too, are leaving a riverfront site. As part of the many actions of corporate restructuring, they sold their nearly century-old building to a Los Angeles developer who envisions turning the tower on Michigan Avenue into retail and luxury residences.

The newspaper confirmed they’ll be moving sometime early in 2018.

They will be relocating to the Prudential Building – which may be just a few blocks south of the Tribune Tower on Michigan Avenue. Which could give their newsroom a prime site overlooking the Millennium Park.

BUT I CAN’T help but think that the Chicago River is going to be a little less active with two such prominent residents moving away from their riverfront locations. Even though I understand that riverfront land is so precious and valued from a real estate standing that it probably makes more sense to sell it off and take the money – rather than use it for newsroom space.

One other thing does amuse me about this particular photograph. Notice off in the background that the Hancock Center building is under construction. Which means if one had turned around and looked to the south, the Sears Tower would be non-existent. Chicago’s “twin” towers (only Trump thinks Chicago has three towers, with his building completing the trio) were not yet to be.

Lake St. location won't be the same as Lower Michigan Ave.

I do have one question, though. That is the main site of the famed Billy Goat Tavern, which used to draw a significant share of its business from reporter-type people (I myself have had too many drinks there throughout the years, although it has been a couple since I last ventured to Lower Michigan Avenue) for a “cheezbugga” and a beer) from its proximity between the two newspaper buildings.

Now, that clientele will be gone. Where will they move to, to ensure their future in 21^st Century Chicago?

  -30-

EXTRA: O’Hare to Atlanta Hartsfield – We beat you!!! (For now, at least)

Chicago Aviation Department officials seem to be enjoying themselves these days – statistics released this week show that O’Hare International Airport had more flights during 2014 than any other airport in the world.

Including Hartsfield/Jackson airport in Atlanta – which for the past decade has acted as though having the “world’s busiest airport” title somehow makes their city more significant than it truly is.

OF COURSE, I’M old enough to remember when it was just a standing statement that O’Hare was the “world’s busiest” by whatever standard was used for measuring such things.

There are those Chicagoans who think the loss of that title to Atlanta hurts just as much as New York City being able to claim the “nation’s tallest building” title away from the one-time Sears Tower.

For the record, the Federal Aviation Administration reported that there were just over 881,000 flights to and from O’Hare last year, compared to 868,000 to and from Atlanta’s airport.

If one prefers to use the standard of the number of passengers who pass through the airport, then Hartsfield remains atop O’Hare.

PERSONALLY, I THINK it is important to keep in mind that this “busiest airport” standard really shouldn’t reflect upon the cities themselves.

Keep in mind that Chicago has so many flights in and out of O’Hare because this is a big nation and people needing to get from coast to coast have to transfer from one plane to another in order to make that trip.

Chicago had the busiest airport for so many years for the same reason that Chicago is the nation’s railroad hub and a center for transportation in general – our centralized location.

Which could have just as easily wound up in St. Louis – if our municipal neighbors to the south had had enough ambition to develop a sizable airport for themselves.

THERE ARE MANY generations of people who traveled by flight whose only “sight” of Chicago was the terminals of O’Hare in between flights.

Just as I’m sure there also are many people who now only pass through Atlanta – I still remember my nephew taking a flight last year from Midway Airport to Washington, D.C., that had a connection in Atlanta.

Which still strikes me as a ridiculous route to take – but I’m sure (at least I hope) some money was saved in the process.

So for now, Chicago gets to claim “Number One” status in airports. Although it won’t shock me to learn that numbers released next year for 2015 show the two airports flip-flopping back again.

I'M SURE THERE are some people who will use whichever title fits their needs at the moment -- such as one newsroom quarrel from over a decade ago back when I was with United Press International.

A Washington-based reporter wrote a story saying that Atlanta's airport was busiest. When Chicago-based correspondents challenged the accuracy, the D.C.-type said his story's premise was based on Atlanta having the title, and he didn't want to be bothered with any outside facts.

That doesn't make Atlanta superior to Chicago by any means.

Heck, even though one-time pitcher Greg Maddux ditched the Cubs for the Atlanta Braves for the bulk of his all-star baseball career, he couldn’t bring himself to pick the Southern City over the Second City when it came time for his cap "logo" for the Baseball Hall of Fame induction last year!

  -30-

EXTRA: Let the 'height' loonies loose. We’re no longer No. 1 in U.S.A.!!!

Does anything really change because of the height ruling

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has made the decision that’s going to anger a lot of already irate people to the point where they’re going to pollute our space with their rhetoric.

They decided Tuesday that the proposed new World Trade Center IS taller than the Willis Tower. Without its decorative spire, the structure scheduled to open next year is 1,368 feet tall – less than the one-time Sears Tower’s 1,450 feet.

WITH THE SPIRE, World Trade will be 1,776 feet tall.

Like I wrote previously, I think the people who are getting worked up over this are being irrational. Both those New Yorkers who think their structure MUST be the nation’s tallest because it is a tribute to those who died at the site on Sept. 11, 2001, and those Chicagoans who think our city’s superiority is somehow put at risk by this move. What does New York have that Chicago would really want (other than a ball club with the history of the Yankees?).

Once the new World Trade opens, the Willis Tower becomes 10^th tallest in the world. Although it should be noted that the Petronas Towers in Malaysia that has been world’s tallest since it opened in 1996 was designed by the same Chicago-based architectural firm that gave us Willis (nee, Sears).
 

Kuala Lampur's Chicago connection

Perhaps that is our city’s claim to fame when it comes to ridiculously-tall buildings. That, and our being the home city of the board that made this official decision to begin with; one that really doesn't alter anything about the character of our home city that makes it a remarkable place to live on Planet Earth.

  -30-

Would we really miss Sears if it left? Strategy reminiscent of the White Sox

I have to confess. I can’t recall the last time I actually purchased anything from Sears.

I doubt I’m at all unique in that regard. The retailer with lots of history and significance to the Chicago-area economy throughout the years is having its own economic struggles.



Lots of Chicago history. But what is its present value?



SO MUCH SO that the company reportedly is considering locating its corporate headquarters somewhere else. We wouldn’t be able to claim Sears as “one of our own.” That honor (if you believe the reporting of the Associated Press) would fall to Boston or the District of Columbia.

But in light of the fact that so few of us are continuing to shop at Sears, I wonder if we’d really care if they left.

Now as many business-oriented people believe, Sears is letting it be known that they may leave the Chicago area altogether and give our business world a symbolic blow of rejection because what they really want is some sort of concessions from government officials that will help boost their bottom line WITHOUT having to go to the trouble of boosting their sales.

Tax breaks of some sort. Perhaps some sort of financial help in terms of maintaining their properties. Who’s to say what they want, or what the state will be willing to give.

BECAUSE GOV. PAT Quinn has said Illinois is willing to do what it takes in order to keep the Sears “brand” as a Chicago-area based company (their headquarters these days is in suburban Hoffman Estates – which is why it’s now the Willis Tower).

On an intellectual level, I’m sure one can argue that there are limits to what Sears ought to be given by the state. One legislator went so far as to tell the Associated Press that Sears is on “the downswing” and shouldn’t get much in the way of anything in terms of financial concessions.

But still, Sears is Sears. If anything, it might be more of a symbolic blow to Chicago’s image to lose Sears than it was when Marshall Field’s officially became nothing more than the Chicago branch of Macy’s.

If anything, it reminds me of the politicking that took place some 23 years ago when the Chicago White Sox went so far as to sign a lease with officials in St. Petersburg, Fla., to have the ballclub play their games in the (then) newly-constructed Florida Suncoast Dome.

IT WAS ONLY when the General Assembly, with its arm twisted by then-Gov. James R. Thompson, engaged in some creative political maneuvering to approve the measure that resulted in the construction of U.S. Cellular Field.

Which White Sox officials later admitted was their true desire. Threats to become the Florida White Sox were merely to scare Chicago political people into pressuring the Legislature to act – and was actually the recommended strategy to the ballclub of Thompson himself.

Now I know of some political people who voted for the White Sox move back in 1988 because of the sentiment that it would be “too embarrassing” for Chicago to lose such a long-standing baseball franchise (a charter member of the American League when it was created in 1900, upgrading to “major league” status in 1901).

Which sounds way too much like the rhetoric we’re likely to hear in coming months. Losing Sears would be the ultimate degradation to the Chicago-area economy (let alone Illinois).

YET I WONDER just how much Illinois can afford to concede in light of the current economic condition? Or if any of the other cities that are making offers to try to attract Sears to their municipal boundaries can seriously afford to pay for whatever perks they are offering the historic retailer?

Should we regard the idea of a D.C.-based Sears in the same way we think of the Florida White Sox – a cute idea that just isn’t practical?

But on the other hand, if Illinois officials decide to play their hand too much like a sledge hammer, will they wind up offending Sears to the point where the company leaves for another city just out of spite?

Because a Sears move wouldn’t be a cheap one for the company. They would need a pretty significant offer to make a move worth their while. That is something our local politicos ought to keep in mind when contemplating what it is worth to keep the corporate headquarters – which admittedly provides for significant numbers of jobs in the northwest suburbs.



There's a reason it's now called the Willis Tower



I KNOW THAT one of  the legislators who voted for the White Sox stadium (then-state Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch) has since said her vote for her favorite baseball team was one of the “five worst votes” she made during her 18 years in the General Assembly.

If we go too far overboard in trying to concoct an economic package to keep Sears in the suburbs, will we have our current crop of legislators making similar comments someday about the company that once had Hammond, Ind. watchmaker Alvah Roebuck as an equally-prominent part of its name?

  -30-

One-time Sears Tower could someday regain a “world’s tallest building” status

For all those people who get worked up over the concept that the Sears Tower is no longer the “world’s tallest building,” relax.

There is a way in which a “world’s tallest” label can be affixed to the building (which will soon become the Willis Tower), and it has to do with the way in which developers are considering making the structure more environmentally friendly.

THE BUILDING’S NEW owners say they want to build a hotel right next to the office building, and they say the new structure would be designed in ways to make the building use as little energy as possible, while emitting as few pollutants as possible.

Some of the changes being considered also would be to the main building itself.

That has some people speculating that the new owners want the Sears/Willis Tower to get recognition by the U.S. Green Building Council as a certified building for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.

This could someday be the world's tallest green building, located across the street from an environmentally-friendly hotel. Photograph provided by State of Illinois.

If the Sears/Willis were to get that designation, it would definitely be the “world’s tallest environmentally friendly building.”

THAT’S A MOUTHFUL.

But it would be recognition and a designation on the building, reinforcing its status as one of the unique manmade structures of Planet Earth.

John Huston of American Landmark Properties told the Chicago Tribune that the proposed changes, ‘will re-establish Sears Tower as a pioneer.” As officials note, the hotel would not draw upon any energy from the city’s power grid.

I just have one question.

IS THIS REALLY the time to be building a new hotel in downtown Chicago? Is there really a need for more downtown hotel rooms, without an Olympic Games some seven years from now to fill them?

When I first saw the headline on the Tribune story about the proposed changes, I thought that perhaps the Willis people were figuring on converting a portion of the tower itself into hotel rooms.

It could be a way of filling some of the vacant office space with people who would be willing to pay premium rates to assuage their egos by staying in a hotel that tries not to harm the environment.

Instead, we’ll get a new building. I will be curious to see how many rooms it can rent out.

THE OTHER PART of this concept is that the Sears/Willis Tower owners apparently want to follow the lead of City Hall and other downtown buildings. Those structures planted trees and other shrubbery on their rooftops on the theory that the existence of so much greenery will help reduce the amount of heat and air conditioning the buildings must use to maintain comfortable temperatures in the structures year-round.

We could soon get grass and shrubs, and maybe even a tree or two, atop the structure up there with the broadcast towers.

There will just be one problem, and it’s not necessarily the $350 million estimated tab to plant these plants.

The other downtown buildings have structures looming over them. So if one can go into one of Chicago’s tallest buildings, you can look down upon the patches of green that are developing in downtown Chicago.

WHO, OUTSIDE OF a passing jet plane that theoretically shouldn’t be getting that close to the Sears/Willis Tower anyway, will ever see the sea of green that could develop on the roof?

It is a noble goal, though.

Chicago could become known for having the “world’s tallest green building.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: An environmentally-friendly hotel and the world’s tallest green building (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-biz-sears-tower-green-hotel-june24,0,187802.story) could both be in downtown Chicago’s future.

What should we call (http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/31739/chicagoans-want-sears-tower-to-keep-its-name/) the world’s tallest green building?

Will “Willis Tower” name take among the locals? Or will it always be Sears?

The left (south) side of this equation gets a new name. How will it be accepted by the locals? Photograph provided by State of Illinois.

My memory of the Sears Tower goes back to the 1973 date that the structure – once the World’s Tallest Building in the same way that O’Hare International was once the World’s Busiest Airport – was dedicated.

My father has spent his lifetime in construction (behind a drafting board, to be exact) with companies that erect those massive structures that help define a city’s character. Back in the early 1970s, he worked for a company that had a piece of the Sears Tower project.

SO WHEN THE structure was dedicated with all the pomp and circumstance that usually accompanies the opening of new publicly visible buildings, my father was on hand. And in an attempt to share the moment (which was part of his professional glory), he brought me along.

I was only 7 at the time, but I remember two images. One was the sight of a building that seemed to go on and on forever into the sky. The other was the sight of Hizzoner himself, Mayor Daley (the real one with the “J.” in his name, not the current one with the “M.”) was present for the event. It was the one time in my life I physically saw the man.

Even though during my lifetime I have twice been to the top of the Sears Tower to look down upon Chicago and the surrounding Midwestern U.S., they are not my lingering memories of the structure in the way that many a tourist feels the need to get off of one of those trolley-like buses and take the elevator up 110 stories – being amazed at how much their ears pop on the ride up.

To me, being able to look up at a new structure that seemed endless (I remember it being an overcast day, so the top of the building literally could have been in the clouds) was much more impressive than riding the elevator to the top to look down – and make jokes about how everybody on the ground looks like a batch of ants scampering around the Chicago cityscape.

IN SHORT, THE Sears Tower has become a part of the Chicago character during its just over a third-of-a century of existence in the South Loop.

Yet, a part of that character is going to change.

Willis Group Holdings, a London-based company, said Thursday it will consolidate five Chicago-area offices into one, and move them into 140,000 square feet of space in the Sears Tower.

Because they will now be such a dominant presence in the office building, the structure will be rededicated as the Willis Tower.

PERHAPS IT IS a sign of how bad the real estate market is for those people who own office buildings, but Willis officials say they didn’t have to pay anything extra to get the name change – beyond the $14.50 per square foot they will pay in rent.

So now we Chicagoans are going to have to get used to a new name. On top of all else, it will be an English name, not a Chicago one like Sears, Roebuck & Co. – which is thought of as a classic Chicago-based company, even though they left the city (and the tower) more than a decade ago for the northwest suburbs.

Will this turn into a case like Marshall Field’s downtown department store, which some people absolutely refuse to think of by its current identity as the State Street outlet for Macy’s?

Will this turn out to be like U.S. Cellular Field, which some stubborn White Sox fans absolutely refuse to think of as anything other than its previous identity as New Comiskey Park?

AS FAR AS I’m concerned, “Willis Tower” is going to take some getting used to, particularly because of its potential for half-wit jokes.

How many people will claim the structure was named for actor Bruce Willis, or that the Hancock Center should get The Arnold Co. (which manufactures railcar door openers) as a namesake tenant. Fans of the old “Diff’rent Strokes” television show could then say Chicago has Willis Tower and the Arnold Center.

It was probably Chicago stubbornness that caused the “Sears Tower” name to remain as long as it did. After all, Sears moved much of its corporate presence from the building years ago.

It really shouldn’t be called “Sears Tower” any longer, except for the fact that so many of us Chicagoans are so used to that name that it will continue to linger for years to come – or at least until my generation finally dies off in three or four decades.

IF ANYTHING, IT is that visibility that has hurt the structure in terms of gaining new tenants. Crain’s Chicago Business, in their report on the name change, noted that Willis is the largest company to move into the structure since the 2001 attacks that took down New York’s World Trade Center.

Too many people seem to think that if something similar were to occur in Chicago, the Sears Tower (make that the Willis Tower) would be the natural target.

So now, one of Chicago’s iconic images needs to be updated, since there are countless programs that make mention of the structure whenever they wish to refer to the Second City.

I remember one of those scientific documentaries that attempted to explain what would become of the planet and man-made structures, once humankind ceases to exist.

THEY LITERALLY USED computer graphics to illustrate how, after about 500 years or so of non-maintenance, the Sears Tower would come crashing down to the ground, taking out whatever remains were left of downtown Chicago.

That was a truly depressing sight to behold.

-30-