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

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

nope, not kidding at all. that old beastly goldberg proposal was at least bad-ass and cool. these pelli towers are just blah; there's no substance to them. they could be anywhere.

I will admit, there is a part of me that is a little worried about that. I can't decide if I think they're a touch sterile. Frankly, I think if you put them in a large sunbelt city, they'd be a bit forgettable (apart from their height). But when I try to combine them into the Chicago skyline in my mind's eye, for whatever reason I think they work. Maybe it's because we have such a rich variation in our architecture, they wouldn't blend so much. I guess at this point, I think it's a good starting point for the tower aesthetics. I would like to see them address the relationship to the river better, as ardecila so astutely pointed out.

[Chicago_Forever]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Agree about the two Pelli towers looking too similar. The two Pelli towers look like they are an office campus trying to compliment each other. I would rather have two buildings contrasting rather then aping each other but that is a personal preference I suppose.

........I wouldn't be bumbed to see these buildings built as presented given that if they were built elsewhere in the city I would be pretty stoked. They are elegant and but I don't imagine they would stop and grab your attention and make you admire them. I was hoping for the type of quality and stature found by all 3 entrants in the SF Transbay complex but I feel this falls just a grade short. The height isn't an issue for me especially if it ends up at 950. I feel a dynamic signature design can well be done at that height.

I am more disappointed by the riverfront and hope it gets a revision far more then the towers. Even though the rivers edge looks like an untamed jungle right now I think it would be a shame to get rid of all the vegetation that sits at the rivers edge and not leave at least a strip of greenery. I think such greenery makes a nice transition and pays homage to the history of the site once was.

Also perhaps I missed it but the shor time I was there I didn't see or hear much evidence of any retail or dining spots down by the riverwalk. Perhaps they look at Trump and done analysis and don't see much potential. Even so it would be a shame to think a few dining destinations or stores to draw pedestrians and visitors in wouldn't be a part of the plans.

I understand that east views from the south-central tower are paramount. Still I do think it would serve the overall scheme well to pin the south tower back from the river a bit. At least from renders it looks like tower basically dissects the riverwalk into two sections. The obligatory fountain (of which the river already has a handful) to tie altogether seems a bit clumsy. I think a sculptural piece or two characterizing the history or symbolism of the river junction (a'la Calatrava's Chicago Spire sculpture) would make a better focal point.

I also think the lobbies of the south and west towers being more flush with the riverwalk would be a benefit. Less ivy covered podiums would be better but I understand the practical constraints they are working with given all the parking they have to provide under those podiums.

Lots of good critique here so far but this one is especially great. Nomarandlee, you share my main complaints of this develoment. It bothers me that they are creating a park behind the towers while leaving such small space in front for a tiny river walk and a water fountain. I think all three towers should be pushed back a bit to allow more room for a great public park/plaza with some sort of sculture that relates the site's history. Also, I agree that while the towers are nice, they're not really eye catching.

I also noticed the renders didn't show any kind of retail which lead me to believe there won't be any. I think that would be a huge mistake. I'm not saying there should be as much retail as the trump but there should be a few restaurants/shops there. With the way things are now, I don't see much activity taking place on that tiny river walk/park. It's too small and there's not much there to attract people.

[jcchii]

overall I think it's fine. The tallest tower needs tweaking.

the importance of the riverwalk element can't be overstated

[rgolch]

A worthwhile read from Chicago Architecture Blog:

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...plan-unveiled/

[Standpoor]

Could the towers be pushed back and still retain the cul de sac. I do not like the idea of big park like areas on the river walk. I like the urban feel more. Once the office towers are finished this could become a water taxi stop and it would certainly be one of the most direct routes to get there for all the western burb commuters.

spitballing:
The major problems are with the east tower and the top of the center tower. The east tower just doesn't fit, its big and bulky while still trying to be elegant. Its similarity to the center mitigates the style of the lines of the center tower. The top of the center tower looks stupid, sloppy, and simple. Cover it up with your thumb and you can see the start of a fairly good building.

It would be a much better plan if the west and east towers were similar and the east tower lined up with the main branch. Therefore all towers would line up with each branch of the river. So picture the center tower framed by two large and elegant boxes. Then if you chop off the top of the center tower and present us with something that is elegant and unboxy, it would play off the other two towers and standout much more.

[Tom In Chicago]

Was at the meeting last night and although I'm too old - and have seen too many of these Wolf Point proposals over the years to give a shit - here's my two cents. . .

-The only building that looks like they've flushed out any of the details is the apartment tower (Phase 1) which appears to be ~50 floors

-The first thing I thought when I saw the 950ft main tower was The Landmark in Abu Dhabi - although the glass/stone/metallic roof detail looked like they put some effort into it rather than relying completely on generic massing. . .

-The ground detail looked pretty good. . . I like the idea of the elevated atrium-like lobbies although I think it won't look anything like the pretty renderings once the buildings get shoe-horned onto their site plans. . . we'll just have to wait and see. . . if ever they get built. . .

-I left before Victor went on his diatribe for two reasons 1) Although everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don't think it's an you're changing anyone's minds by offering an outsiders counterpoint to the typical NIMBY complaints 2) This was essentially the alderman's forum to let people rant and rave about traffic concerns as well as their lack of parkland. . . these idiots won't have any actual say when all is said and done so what's the point of enraging them further by pointing this out to them? I chuckled when the one guy stupidly demanded they turn the entire site into a park. . .

Anyhow I'm not optimistic that we'll see anything besides Phase 1 getting completed anytime soon. . . although I've been wrong before. . .

. . .

[GregBear24]

rgolch, that Chicago Architecture Blog link you just posted blew my mind. It feels like I'm reading delusional propaganda. It is my opinion that these designs are equally disappointing to the latest clark&wacker design. I'd rather see these lots sit vacant until someone who actually cares about our city comes along to build something special on them. This is the greatest undeveloped site maybe in the history of this city. If the Sears Tower could be built on the site it sits upon, then this site demands something- at the bare minimum- equally as inspiring and powerful. It doesn't have to be supertall, but it needs to be special. I'd prefer Aqua being placed here by itself to this lazy, uninspired site plan with buildings that I could draw myself in a couple days of free time after work- literally.

I'm not going to call this trash, or horrible. However, I have no words of praise for this proposal whatsoever. To see a development like AMLI take away a parking lot somewhere doesn't really bother me, but this site not only requires greatness- but historical greatness. We as a people need to step up and demand that elected officials allow nothing short of near perfection, innovation, and Chicago-style ass kicking architecture for a site of such prominence and historical importance. End rant.

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

We as a people need to step up and demand that elected officials allow nothing short of near perfection, innovation, and Chicago-style ass kicking architecture for a site of such prominence and historical importance. End rant.

I can see the campaign materials now: "I stand for near perfection, innovation, and Chicago-style ass kicking architecture." I'd vote for him (or her)...

[Zapatan]

If this development is going to take so long, maybe along the way it can change for the better. I would like to think the market in Chicago is recovering.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

rgolch, that Chicago Architecture Blog link you just posted blew my mind. It feels like I'm reading delusional propaganda.

To see a development like AMLI take away a parking lot somewhere doesn't really bother me, but this site not only requires greatness- but historical greatness. We as a people need to step up and demand that elected officials allow nothing short of near perfection, innovation, and Chicago-style ass kicking architecture for a site of such prominence and historical importance. End rant.

Well, I don't disagree with you about wanting something amazing for such a prominent site. But as I've said in my other posts, I think it's unrealistic to have such incredibly high expectations, regardless of the location of this site. But maybe I should have higher expections.....

Regardless, unless any of us have the cash to buy the site, and develop something great, it's kind of pointless getting all worked up about it.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Was at the meeting last night and although I'm too old - and have seen too many of these Wolf Point proposals over the years to give a shit - here's my two cents. . .

-The only building that looks like they've flushed out any of the details is the apartment tower (Phase 1) which appears to be ~50 floors

-The first thing I thought when I saw the 950ft main tower was The Landmark in Abu Dhabi - although the glass/stone/metallic roof detail looked like they put some effort into it rather than relying completely on generic massing. . .

-The ground detail looked pretty good. . . I like the idea of the elevated atrium-like lobbies although I think it won't look anything like the pretty renderings once the buildings get shoe-horned onto their site plans. . . we'll just have to wait and see. . . if ever they get built. . .

-I left before Victor went on his diatribe for two reasons 1) Although everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don't think it's an you're changing anyone's minds by offering an outsiders counterpoint to the typical NIMBY complaints 2) This was essentially the alderman's forum to let people rant and rave about traffic concerns as well as their lack of parkland. . . these idiots won't have any actual say when all is said and done so what's the point of enraging them further by pointing this out to them? I chuckled when the one guy stupidly demanded they turn the entire site into a park. . .

Anyhow I'm not optimistic that we'll see anything besides Phase 1 getting completed anytime soon. . . although I've been wrong before. . .

. . .

Turning into a park like Battery Park in New York? =) The parking/traffic really is going to create problems for the site.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

nope, not kidding at all. that old beastly goldberg proposal was at least bad-ass and cool. these pelli towers are just blah; there's no substance to them. they could be anywhere.

^ That goldberg proposal just looks awful

[nergie]

I appreciate the simplicity of the design and it would be really cool if STR could produce a 3-D render of the skyline with the WP development as currently proposed.

IMHO, the beauty of Chicago's skyline is its simplicity as elequontely pointed out by another poster. The simplicitiy of Hancock, AON, Trump, et al and their contextual presence is what makes Chicago, again IMO, the best skyline out there.

I have seen nearly all the major skylines in person, bucketlist-item 4, and the Middle Eastern and China's skylines are, again IMO, trying way too hard. A few streets from Pudong, the architecture makes River North look decent. Buildings in Dubai appear nice from afar, but upon closer inspection, you can see the shoddy construction and tacky material used.

I agree that these designs can be improved, Eastern building needs a diet, but for me the key will be the materials, little details and not the basic shapes.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by nergie

I appreciate the simplicity of the design and it would be really cool if STR could produce a 3-D render of the skyline with the WP development as currently proposed.

IMHO, the beauty of Chicago's skyline is its simplicity as elequontely pointed out by another poster. The simplicitiy of Hancock, AON, Trump, et al and their contextual presence is what makes Chicago, again IMO, the best skyline out there.

I have seen nearly all the major skylines in person, bucketlist-item 4, and the Middle Eastern and China's skylines are, again IMO, trying way too hard. A few streets from Pudong, the architecture makes River North look decent. Buildings in Dubai appear nice from afar, but upon closer inspection, you can see the shoddy construction and tacky material used.

I agree that these designs can be improved, Eastern building needs a diet, but for me the key will be the materials, little details and not the basic shapes.

Agreed. I think this will add a lot to the skyline, especially from the side. I was just over at SSC, and everyone loves it.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You are going to learn very quickly that the opinions of some goons over at SSC are not very influential on SSP. The crowd here is a lot more critical, a lot less fanboyish, and a lot more involved/educated in the development process. I'm not bashing SSC, they have their own place, but you keep backing up your posts by saying "and some guy at SSC said..." which makes most people on SSP chuckle. The moderation at SSP is a lot more controlled and people who run around wildly speculating on this and that are shut out. So while people at SSC are entitled to their opinions, they certainly aren't considered a credible source here.


As for my opinion, this design is exactly what I expected (with the pleasant surprise of the BKL tower). Pelli is garbage and 90% of what he designs is bland, mediocre, crap. These towers fit perfectly into his "amorphous, pointy, multifacted tower" aesthetic and don't do the site justice. His designs would be A LOT better if they were combined into one large tower that actually tried to address the site rather than a tower that kinda addresses the site and another that just sits there off to the side like Jabba the Hut, completely trashing the aesthetics of the site. It's like he was like "here's a signature tower... oh shit, we need to find somewhere to put 1,000,000 SF, let's just pile it in an amorphous blob here in the corner of the site".

So my point is Pelli is a hack and I'm not even certain how anyone considers him a "Starchitect". BKL is a far better firm than Pelli's. This design is textbook evidence of this. Despite the massive scale and more prominent siting of the Pelli towers, my entire attention and focus is drawn to the BKL design. It's far better thought out, has better massing, and a much more interesting base. This tower I would rate as good as or better than their efforts with the Coast and is a solid B+/A- in my book. The Pelli designs can hardly muster a B- from me.

What I do like about the plan is how the BKL design interfaces with the river. If all these buildings are modified to interface with the waterfront like that, then this will be a successful development if only because it will create a fantastic, unique, new public space.

[GregBear24]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Well, I don't disagree with you about wanting something amazing for such a prominent site. But as I've said in my other posts, I think it's unrealistic to have such incredibly high expectations, regardless of the location of this site. But maybe I should have higher expections.....

Regardless, unless any of us have the cash to buy the site, and develop something great, it's kind of pointless getting all worked up about it.

Yeah, I agree with your points there. It just becomes a bit frustrating to see mediocre developments at such prominent sites. High expectations can be a set-up for failure. Perhaps instead of saying we should demand near-perfection, to demand something that is more timeless and mindful of its location and surroundings would be a more reasonable statement.

[ChiTownCity]

Can Zapataan or one of the Moderators add the renderings onto the first post of the first page please...

[Chief Blackhawk]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Well, I don't disagree with you about wanting something amazing for such a prominent site. But as I've said in my other posts, I think it's unrealistic to have such incredibly high expectations, regardless of the location of this site. But maybe I should have higher expections.....
Regardless, unless any of us have the cash to buy the site, and develop something great, it's kind of pointless getting all worked up about it.

For Wolf Point, you should.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ You are going to learn very quickly that the opinions of some goons over at SSC are not very influential on SSP. The crowd here is a lot more critical, a lot less fanboyish, and a lot more involved/educated in the development process. I'm not bashing SSC, they have their own place, but you keep backing up your posts by saying "and some guy at SSC said..." which makes most people on SSP chuckle. The moderation at SSP is a lot more controlled and people who run around wildly speculating on this and that are shut out. So while people at SSC are entitled to their opinions, they certainly aren't considered a credible source here.


As for my opinion, this design is exactly what I expected (with the pleasant surprise of the BKL tower). Pelli is garbage and 90% of what he designs is bland, mediocre, crap. These towers fit perfectly into his "amorphous, pointy, multifacted tower" aesthetic and don't do the site justice. His designs would be A LOT better if they were combined into one large tower that actually tried to address the site rather than a tower that kinda addresses the site and another that just sits there off to the side like Jabba the Hut, completely trashing the aesthetics of the site. It's like he was like "here's a signature tower... oh shit, we need to find somewhere to put 1,000,000 SF, let's just pile it in an amorphous blob here in the corner of the site".

So my point is Pelli is a hack and I'm not even certain how anyone considers him a "Starchitect". BKL is a far better firm than Pelli's. This design is textbook evidence of this. Despite the massive scale and more prominent siting of the Pelli towers, my entire attention and focus is drawn to the BKL design. It's far better thought out, has better massing, and a much more interesting base. This tower I would rate as good as or better than their efforts with the Coast and is a solid B+/A- in my book. The Pelli designs can hardly muster a B- from me.

What I do like about the plan is how the BKL design interfaces with the river. If all these buildings are modified to interface with the waterfront like that, then this will be a successful development if only because it will create a fantastic, unique, new public space.

It is hard to consider Pelli's work mediocre. He is a world renown architect, and I am sure the Kennedys wanted something great for Chicago, and they thought he would deliver. I think he did a pretty good job, but I do think SOM could have designed something better.

I really think that Pelli tried to make something great, but his designs aren't that incredible nowadays. The last great skyscraper he designed was the Petronas Towers, and he had a lot of help on that.

[bnk]

Rendering of proposed towers at Wolf Point, 350 N. Orleans St. (May 29, 2012)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7108445.story

First glimpse of plan for Wolf Point along Chicago River

Comments 29

Blair Kamin

Tribune Architecture Critic

...
9:59 a.m. CDT, May 30, 2012