CHICAGO | Wolf Point - West Tower | 493 FT | 48 FLOORS

[ardecila]

Unfortunately the new towers will also block that breathtaking golden evening light that makes the canyon sparkle in that photo.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Unfortunately the new towers will also block that breathtaking golden evening light that makes the canyon sparkle in that photo.

Light finds a way.

[Rizzo]

Maybe depending on the time of year, but I think the proposed buildings are narrow enough to allow substantial light penetration

Bravenewworld, I think River Point may be a little too tall in your rendition, the top of the roof should just barely touch the top edge of the photo, maybe even slightly beneath that. Riverbend is around 450' while Riverpoint will at least be 650'

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Light finds a way.

Reflecting off the glass of the towers.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Light finds a way.

Reflecting off the glass of the towers.


BraveNewWorld, it looks like Friends of Wolf Point is using your mock-up to say "it will create an undesirable skyscraper “canyon” effect."

http://friendsofwolfpoint.com/

These people are so dumb. Have they not looked out their Effing windows? The main branch and south branch are canonized already. Seriously... They're a sorry excuses for urban city dwellers.

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Reflecting off the glass of the towers.


BraveNewWorld, it looks like Friends of Wolf Point is using your mock-up to say "it will create an undesirable skyscraper “canyon” effect."

http://friendsofwolfpoint.com/

These people are so dumb. Have they not looked out their Effing windows? The main branch and south branch are canonized already. Seriously... They're a sorry excuses for urban city dwellers.

I think it is worth contacting them and letting them know that it is not OK to use those images without explicit permission. Unless of course you want them to.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Reflecting off the glass of the towers.


BraveNewWorld, it looks like Friends of Wolf Point is using your mock-up to say "it will create an undesirable skyscraper “canyon” effect."

http://friendsofwolfpoint.com/

These people are so dumb. Have they not looked out their Effing windows? The main branch and south branch are canonized already. Seriously... They're a sorry excuses for urban city dwellers.

That has to be the funniest thing ever!

I create a quick and bad quality photo edit and they use it! Now I know just how much of a joke these people are, I added in an extra building to represent 400 w randolph also. The buildings also weren't to scale, yet they call it a "New mock-ups that have begun appearing online show that the proposed Wolf Point towers and the River Point"


Maybe they will bring it to the next meeting, and Cesar Pelli will see it, and happen to mention how bad the proportions are. I made the Wolf Point Tower big, because I couldn't add the 2 other towers because of the angle

[Rizzo]

I saw it posted earlier, but it appears as of noon it's been taken down, which is good because they never asked me for permission to use my image. And I didn't seen any citation whatsoever. They put copyrights on their images, but apparently it's okay for them to steal images from here. We all witnessed this action and apparently they hold a double standard. I find it disrespectful that they'd use our work to reinforce their agenda

[Steely Dan]

"The Friends of Wolf Point" is just a proxy name anyway. we all need to start referring to it by its actual name: "The Friends of Riverbend Condo Views".

[BraveNewWorld]

Because of the nefarious schemes of "The Friends of Riverbend Condo Views"

I had to create a more realistic render

[jarta]

Even more realistic would be to move the Wolf Point Tower all the way out to the end of the vegetation on the south end of the point. That's where Pelli/Hines puts it.

And, extend 444 Lake to the north a little, too.

That's the trouble with mock-ups.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by jarta

Even more realistic would be to move the Wolf Point Tower all the way out to the end of the vegetation on the south end of the point. That's where Pelli/Hines puts it.

And, extend 444 Lake to the north a little, too.

That's the trouble with mock-ups.

I actually considered both of these. I tried pushing WP1 out like you said, but without the riverwalk, and the beams at the front of the tower it didn't look right

[jarta]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

I actually considered both of these. I tried pushing WP1 out like you said, but without the riverwalk, and the beams at the front of the tower it didn't look right

Brave, ... There would be those who say it doesn't look right when the Riverwalk is, in substantial portion, an obstructed tunnel and the River is bulkheaded only to provide a solid base to move the South Tower even farther out into the River.

The map I saw when I looked at the application for an amendment even extends the bulkhead past the current riverbank in an effort to recoup some of the area that eroded because the Kennedy's have never attempted to stabilize the natural riverbank. The Army Corps might have something to say about that "finesse."

Look, I know you are trying. But, it's sort of like Igor's hump moving from side to side in Young Frankenstein (could be worse; could be raining! lol!).

IMO, that's why the Hines Wolf Point rendering of the view east to west is from around Wacker Drive and Clark. Showing both Wolf Point and 444 Lake (like it alot!) from the middle of a bridge would disclose that the westward view will be "walled off" (or nearly so) when the projects are viewed together.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I saw it posted earlier, but it appears as of noon it's been taken down, which is good because they never asked me for permission to use my image. And I didn't seen any citation whatsoever. They put copyrights on their images, but apparently it's okay for them to steal images from here. We all witnessed this action and apparently they hold a double standard. I find it disrespectful that they'd use our work to reinforce their agenda

Yeah, I sent them an email about it

[BraveNewWorld]

Here is a recent Sun Times Article that discusses this and 111 Wacker http://www.suntimes.com/business/129...-la-shell.html

Reilly hosted a public meeting last week about developers’ three-tower plan at Wolf Point. He’s heard from many nearby residents angry about their views, which can’t be protected. Reilly, whose support is crucial for the project to get zoning, said he’s focusing his review on the building designs, site plan and traffic issues.

The alderman also said that zoning matters now account for 75 percent of the entries on his calendar, which he said is back to where they were in the days of the condo boom. It’s the clearest signal I’ve seen of a real estate recovery.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

Here is a recent Sun Times Article that discusses this and 111 Wacker http://www.suntimes.com/business/129...-la-shell.html

You know, I was at that meeting you and the article mention. Almost 60 citizens asked questions. IIRR, 1-3 of the 60 asked about their views. The rest were concerned about traffic, density, the propriety of the 1973 PD zoning allowances to the changed 2012 situation of a predominately residential neighborhood, the Riverwalk provisions and the number of new parking spaces (1,285) which would be added to the existing limit of 1,500 for the PUD property. Those issues are set out right in the PD portion of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance.

An overwhelming majority of those who spoke were not from RiverBend (333 Canal). They lived elsewhere, mainly on Kinzie, in the River North neighborhood. The person who spoke from Friends of Wolf Point (and seemed to live in RiverBend) never uttered the word "view."

The only question that got Fred Clarke from Pelli to wake up (he was bored by non-architectural questions) was a question about the "curtain wall" drawn across the east to west view down the River. Clarke's eyes started to twinkle and he responded that he really understood what was being asked and could work on it - I guess with the unstated proviso "if I ever have to."

[Steely Dan]

^ NIMBYs never mention their views (and the dollar amounts that their condo units will depreciate when said views are lost) because that would make them appear petty and self-serving, so they smoke-screen their selfish opposition to tall buildings with "a thousand other concerns".

[Tom In Chicago]

^I seem to recall very little whining from you when your condo view was lost. . . well done. . .

. . .

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^I seem to recall very little whining from you when your condo view was lost. . . well done. . .

. . .

He's a man of his word, and for that he deserves respect.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ NIMBYs never mention their views (and the dollar amounts that their condo units will depreciate when said views are lost) because that would make them appear petty and self-serving, so they smoke-screen their selfish opposition to tall buildings with "a thousand other concerns".

The depreciation occurred back in 2007. In a few short years, Kinzie Park and Riverbend townhomes and apartments will be selling for over $500 per sq. ft.

Wolf Point is planning on renting it's smallest apartments in the West Tower for $2,000/month; largest for $4,000/month. The average size of the planned apartments there is 750 sq. ft. Those rents will dramatically force up condo values and it will be "off to the races" - view or no view. Corporate types who will work at River Point and Wolf Point (and 400 W. Randolph) will be the "suckers" who need nearby executive housing.

Where else are you going to find 2,300 sq. ft. 3-brs (KP) and mostly 2,600-3,800 sq. ft. 3-brs + 11' ceilings (RB) where you can walk to work Downtown for less than $500 per sq. ft.?

The real question is how good are Wolf Point and 444 W. Lake? IMO, 444 is acceptable; Wolf Point is not because it does not give the people of Chicago a sense of the history of the place and it overdensifies and overdevelops the River's confluence.