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

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jarta

Wolf Point...... does not give the people of Chicago a sense of the history of the place.

i mostly agree. though i think that can be accomplished with better site planning and architecture, not by turning the entire southern half of the property into a park.

Originally Posted by jarta

and it overdensifies and overdevelops the River's confluence.

i mostly disagree. the problem isn't too much building, the problem is too much parking.

[markh9]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I find it disrespectful that they'd use our work to reinforce their agenda

Agreed.

I busted my ass (and destroyed my schedule) the night of the Wolf Point meeting to get those shots of the Wolf Point concepts for the sole purpose of discussing and sharing with this board.

Now, FoWP has my shots spattered all over their site. (The photos also have uncredited guest appearances on Curbed and ChicagoArchitecture.info - where the blogger watermarked 'em with his own website as if they're his...)

Maybe next time, I'll put a big fat SSP watermark on there

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by markh9

Agreed.

I busted my ass (and destroyed my schedule) the night of the Wolf Point meeting to get those shots of the Wolf Point concepts for the sole purpose of discussing and sharing with this board.

Now, FoWP has my shots spattered all over their site. (The photos also have uncredited guest appearances on Curbed and ChicagoArchitecture.info - where the blogger watermarked 'em with his own website as if they're his...)

Maybe next time, I'll put a big fat SSP watermark on there

Yeah, I remember that, those were great photos. Send each site a message about crediting you, and that should fix things.

[Rizzo]

Ok, let's take a pause here to discuss images. I realize were are upset on photos getting posted everywhere, but let's evaluate our own actions as well.

Alot of the published renderings from the firm that designed them are copyrighted works. We should be considerate on creating derivative works for them. We don't want SSP to be part of the dilution of original work.

It's also policy on this website to properly attribute the originals, no matter how many times they are repeated in this thread.

The safest bet to creating our own visuals for understanding and having full control over images is to create everything from scratch. This is done in some of the NY threads

[Standpoor]

With that in mind. Here are two pictures I took, trying to demonstrate that West views are already blocked by Riverbend/Left Bank and will be even more by River Point. There will already be a wall of buildings blocking westward views before Wolf Point Towers go up and Wolf Point will only block a little more than Riverbend and Left Bank. Sure the towers will be more imposing and on the other side of the North Branch but Riverbend is already an unpleasant backdrop looking down the river.

I tried to take the picture so I was lined up as close to the point of Wolf Point, so these photos are looking West lined up with where the building will start. For the most part, the only thing that is going to be blocked by these new towers will be Riverbend and I am perfectly happy with that.

20120612_144335

20120612_143950

Please feel free to make what ever changes you want with the photos and insert what ever you want.

[xXSkyscraperDudeXx]

Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox

Yeah...trees are the worst.

What's wrong with people this days! Trees make the environment better, Trees are what makes us breath clean Oxygen, Come on People think Green!
Don't mistaken me i love buildings but i also like them to be environmental friendly! Also in my opinion the trees look kinda awesome there! i guess...

[ChiPhi]

^^^
The number of trees needed to offset the carbon footprint of a building this large is astronomical. Even the number of trees needed to offset the carbon footprint of the people who would be breathing in the park during their lunch hour isn't really there. The trees aren't about being green (and if the developer tries to spin it as such, they are BSing). The trees are about making a beautiful, liveable environment and I think many of us, including myself, think that the trees, especially in their sterile and artificial placement, makes the place feel more like an office park in the suburbs than an urban environment.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by xXSkyscraperDudeXx

What's wrong with people this days! Trees make the environment better, Trees are what makes us breath clean Oxygen, Come on People think Green!
Don't mistaken me i love buildings but i also like them to be environmental friendly! Also in my opinion the trees look kinda awesome there! i guess...

Its sarcasm.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by Standpoor

With that in mind. Here are two pictures I took, trying to demonstrate that West views are already blocked by Riverbend/Left Bank and will be even more by River Point. There will already be a wall of buildings blocking westward views before Wolf Point Towers go up and Wolf Point will only block a little more than Riverbend and Left Bank. Sure the towers will be more imposing and on the other side of the North Branch but Riverbend is already an unpleasant backdrop looking down the river.

I tried to take the picture so I was lined up as close to the point of Wolf Point, so these photos are looking West lined up with where the building will start. For the most part, the only thing that is going to be blocked by these new towers will be Riverbend and I am perfectly happy with that.

20120612_144335



20120612_143950

Please feel free to make what ever changes you want with the photos and insert what ever you want.

Those are generally neutral pictures and comments about the current blockage of view to the west that people can agree or disagree about.

How about the fact that the City's 2009 Action Plan for River North designates the area on the southern half of Wolf Point (say from the middle of Riverbend) as "Naturalized Open Space?" How about the fact that the mandatory Riverwalk is buried under towers with a tunnel effect when a 30" unobstructed easement (like the one Hines built at 300 N. LaSalle) is required? How about the fact that building the equivalent of Willis (Sears) Tower density on an isolated peninsula without having any infrastructure changes in the neighborhood since 1973 - except for adding the Kinzie bikes lanes to the mix - is insanity? How about the fact that a supposed new, independent traffic study shows the developer's car counts at key intersections are 100% low (as disclosed in the River Point community meeting) and, with the same traffic study firm having prepared reports for Hines for both River Point and Wolf Point, traffic counts are substantially lower for the same intersections for the Wolf Point study?

What about the fact that Tower 2 was presented as primarily an office/hotel mixed use tower oriented toward use of transit for access but there 885 new parking spaces allocated in the wished-for zoning ordinance to Tower 2 - as well as permission to put in 600 residential units? Who's trying to pull the wool over the City's eyes here? As the Chicago Tribune architecture critic stated about a week ago, the Wolf Point development plan needs "substantial reworking."

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....elopment-.html

But, I am of the opinion something substantial will be built on Wolf Point - just something a little more in line with the neighborhood conditions that exist today, rather than what might have been good public planning policy back in 1973 - when a beacon was deemed necessary to lure development north and west of the River. Alas, the owner of Wolf Point never got around to building the beacon and the area west and north of the River developed without the beacon!

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by jarta

Those are generally neutral pictures and comments about the current blockage of view to the west that people can agree or disagree about.

How about the fact that the City's 2009 Action Plan for River North designates the area on the southern half of Wolf Point (say from the middle of Riverbend) as "Naturalized Open Space?" How about the fact that the mandatory Riverwalk is buried under towers with a tunnel effect when a 30" unobstructed easement (like the one Hines built at 300 N. LaSalle) is required? How about the fact that building the equivalent of Willis (Sears) Tower density on an isolated peninsula without having any infrastructure changes in the neighborhood since 1973 - except for adding the Kinzie bikes lanes to the mix - is insanity? How about the fact that a supposed new, independent traffic study shows the developer's car counts at key intersections are 100% low (as disclosed in the River Point community meeting) and, with the same traffic study firm having prepared reports for Hines for both River Point and Wolf Point, traffic counts are substantially lower for the same intersections for the Wolf Point study?

What about the fact that Tower 2 was presented as primarily an office/hotel mixed use tower oriented toward use of transit for access but there 885 new parking spaces allocated in the wished-for zoning ordinance to Tower 2 - as well as permission to put in 600 residential units? Who's trying to pull the wool over the City's eyes here? As the Chicago Tribune architecture critic stated about a week ago, the Wolf Point development plan needs "substantial reworking."

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....elopment-.html

But, I am of the opinion something substantial will be built on Wolf Point - just something a little more in line with the neighborhood conditions that exist today, rather than what might have been good public planning policy back in 1973 - when a beacon was deemed necessary to lure development north and west of the River. Alas, the owner of Wolf Point never got around to building the beacon and the area west and north of the River developed without the beacon!

You sound like a NIMBY

[J_M_Tungsten]

Cities, plans, and views change. Get used to it.

[F1 Tommy]

Now that is funny, and on skyscraperpage no less!!


I hope they build this set of towers, although the design could be improved and made more original. The size is right for this area. These will be trophy towers for the city at an important location. NIMBYS should not bother trying to block it for selfish reasons. Your views will still be wonderful.

[BraveNewWorld]

So everyone agrees that jarta sounds like one of those people from Friends of Wolf Point ?

[jarta]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

So everyone agrees that jarta sounds like one of those people from Friends of Wolf Point ?

What do "those people" from Friends of Wolf Point sound like? Actually, you don't know anything about me.

The statements I made about the application for the zoning amendment were made because I have actually read the application. You should read it yourself to see what it contains. How about the existing 1,500 parking spaces allowed to both parcels in 1973 being shifted to the Apparel Center parcel and the Wolf Point parcel being granted another, additional 1,285 parking spaces - 885 being allocated to the supposed office and hotel Tower 2 (the new, undisclosed 600 unit condo/apartment building?), 200 to the residential Tower 1 and 200 to the office Tower 3? What about the horribly inaccurate traffic study done for Wolf Point? What infrastructure improvements to improve traffic flow have been disclosed? Wherre's the recorded easement for public use like the one the City received at 444 W. Lake?

But, rather than debating or refuting the things I said, you just engage in name-calling.

Something beautiful, tall and substantial will be built at Wolf Point. Just not this plan of development. It needs "substantial reworking." And, that apt descriptive phrase didn't originate with me.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by jarta

What do "those people" from Friends of Wolf Point sound like? Actually, you don't know anything about me.

The statements I made about the application for the zoning amendment were made because I have actually read the application. You should read it yourself to see what it contains. How about the existing 1,500 parking spaces allowed to both parcels in 1973 being shifted to the Apparel Center parcel and the Wolf Point parcel being granted another, additional 1,285 parking spaces - 885 being allocated to the supposed office and hotel Tower 2 (the new, undisclosed 600 unit condo/apartment building?), 200 to the residential Tower 1 and 200 to the office Tower 3? What about the horribly inaccurate traffic study done for Wolf Point? What infrastructure improvements to improve traffic flow have been disclosed? Wherre's the recorded easement for public use like the one the City received at 444 W. Lake?

But, rather than debating or refuting the things I said, you just engage in name-calling.

Something beautiful, tall and substantial will be built at Wolf Point. Just not this plan of development. It needs "substantial reworking." And, that apt descriptive phrase didn't originate with me.

You are crazy if you think that Rahm wont approve this, it is a billion dollar project for Chicago. The only thing that could stop this is lack of funds or economy.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by jarta

What about the horribly inaccurate traffic study done for Wolf Point?

How is it inaccurate? KLOA worked with CDOT to study six intersections that would be affected by the development. It even conceded that certain areas will be negatively impacted. What makes you question its findings?

[ardecila]

^^ The fact that it was commissioned and paid for by the developer, and the fact that it does not recommend any serious improvements over the status quo (conveniently). The engineers have a huge conflict of interest, and they're under great pressure to underestimate the development's effects on traffic.

Actually, the study did recommend a few improvements - traffic lights at Kinzie/Canal and Kinzie/Kingsbury, and a rejiggering of the site plan to allow access to Kinzie along the river past the Apparel Mart. I assume Reilly will eventually demand that Hines pay for all of these. He mentioned several times that Hines' "contribution to the neighborhood" had yet to be decided for Wolf Point.

I'm trying to decide whether I would prefer the pedestrian bridge I mentioned earlier, or Hines funding under-bridge connectors for the Riverwalk at Kinzie, Grand, and Ohio to provide an unbroken grade-separated path up to Division.

[jarta]

"I'm trying to decide whether I would prefer the pedestrian bridge I mentioned earlier, or Hines funding under-bridge connectors for the Riverwalk at Kinzie, Grand, and Ohio to provide an unbroken grade-separated path up to Division."

IMO, those are not the only concessions that could be asked for - or made.

Secton 17-13-0611-A of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance requires full re-zoning hearings/procedures whenever a reduction in a required setback is requested and whenever more than 3 dwelling units are added to a PD.

Here the request is being made for an addition of 1,110 new residential units (510 at Tower 1-West and 600 at Tower 2-South) and, as the application states, the setbacks for Sub-Area B (Wolf Point) are not per Riverwalk design guidelines and standards concerning the bank and the required 30' setback, but "Per Site Plans."

It's sort of all or nothing for the addition of residential spaces since Section 17-13-0611-A(3)(a) only allows an increase in the number of specified residential units "once per planned development, or if applicable, once per sub-area".

No number of residential units was designated in the present, 1973, PD ordinance (too ancient for nagging little things like that). The developers are rolling the dice - big-time - here in not disclosing that 1,110 residential units and 1,085 parking spaces could be allocated to residential uses in the "transit oriented" development plan set forth in the proposed amended ordinance. And, all they want is for the City to put in 2 stoplights on Kinzie? ROFL!

[jarta]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

How is it inaccurate? KLOA worked with CDOT to study six intersections that would be affected by the development. It even conceded that certain areas will be negatively impacted. What makes you question its findings?

What makes me question the findings are personal observations driving on Kinzie (or Kingsbury, or Lake, or Grand, or Orleans, or Canal) anywhere within 4 blocks of Wolf Point during rush hours and the rumors heard at the 444 W. Lake "community meeting" about the hoses that were thrown down over the last 2 weeks and the counts generated by them, for some key intersections, added up to double what KLOA found. And KLOA did not consider bike traffic on Kinzie.

If KLOA assumed residential only in the West Tower and still found a negative impact with less traffic and no bike traffic taken into account and the car counts are that far off, what's the true impact of the Wolf Point plan of development on the River North neighborhood?

Working with a City department that, unfortunately, does not now have the manpower and resources to really verify the accuracy of all the traffic studies that come in, is no guarantee of accuracy. It looks like this one will not slip by without a challenge.

Moreover, KLOA did 2 traffic studies for Hines - 444 W. Lake and Wolf Point. Another traffic study was done for the new Habitat development at Kingsbury and Hubbard-Illinois. Some of the intersections "studied" overlap. Three guesses which study consistently found less traffic in the neighborhood? Maybe the last one done? I know, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." But ....

And how about foot traffic? The sidewalk on the east side of Canal narrows so much that 2 people cannot pass each other without one having to step off the curb and into Canal Street. How is the added foot traffic from 2 train stations (Ogilvy and Union) and the Clinton/Lake El stop going to get to offices at Wolf Point, assuming there will actually be offices at Wolf Point?

The renderings are surely impressive! But, like the Wizard of Oz, you're not supposed to look behind the curtain wall. ROFL! (You guys crack me up. No concessions or changes!)

[george]

6-13