HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    River Point in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 12:25 AM
Standpoor's Avatar
Standpoor Standpoor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
Not sure why I'm being misinterpreted so much. My point is, if they are waiting to see how pre leasing goes before they decide what to build, then what exactly makes this a spec tower?
I think the financing makes this a spec tower. If there aren't any pre-lease requirements or Hines has the ability to start construction without a single lease, then it is a spec tower. Who cares whether they sign a lease before construction or during construction. What matters is that they planned the building not knowing who was going to be the lessees. Now they're just deciding on whether to add 200,00 sf but not deciding on whether to build. I think this is a good thing. If he is talking about adding space to the building, then he is confident or sees something to suggest that leasing will be robust.
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 1:12 AM
jarta jarta is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
Not sure why I'm being misinterpreted so much. My point is, if they are waiting to see how pre leasing goes before they decide what to build, then what exactly makes this a spec tower?

They have financing, which is a nice leg up, but that is only part of the battle. In general the exec's comment makes me less sure that we will ultimately see construction.

I'd still say its probably the most realistic of all the proposals but my confidence is wavering.
This classy building is a definite go. Hines would like to start and have the pilings in for the elevated plaza by the time the snows come. Next Spring, Hines would like to start building the plaza - from east to west. Once constructed, the plaza will serve as the staging area for the tower. Once the tower tops out, the plaza will be finished and landscaped. (The City has a perpetual recorded easement over much of the plaza.)

The only "problems" with the neighbors are the nighttime construction necessary for the plaza at 444 W. Lake, the snow removal on the sloped Lake Street sidewalk and the increased traffic (cars and pedestrians) and railroad crossing on Canal Street.

Most residents in the area accept the fact that it is unavoidable - night lighting and night construction noise will be present. Hours and noise levels need to be set. But, the usual NIMBYs actually like the development, realize that it is inevitable and see it as an improvement to the neighborhood.

Hines just has to promise it will maintain snow removal on Lake Street and talks are beginning about infrastructure improvements (new sidewalks, curbs, railroad gates, traffic patterns, etc.) on Canal Street. That infrastructure work is long overdue. Plus, Google is coming to the Merchandise Mart and something pretty large is going to be built on Wolf Point.

Hines may not have tenants yet. But, it will find them. (It had before the crash for this site.)

The only thing I would add is for there to be another path from the plaza to the Riverwalk from the north section of the plaza. Right now, the only access to the Riverwalk is provided at the south end of the plaza by an elevator or stairs at the north side of the Lake Street Bridge.
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 1:30 AM
Fatality's Avatar
Fatality Fatality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 117
DaMn!
Great to see it isn't a square but first proposal looks definitely better than rest!
Wish we had something like that in Toronto proposed XD
__________________
Toronto~ `Big and getting Bigger`
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 2:31 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/re...pagewanted=all

Chicago Attracts New Towers With River Views

July 11, 2012
By ROBERT SHAROF
Quote:
River Point has a dramatic concave glass facade that, according to the chief designer Anthony Markese, is meant to complement the convex facade of its neighbor across the river, 333 West Wacker Drive.
Either I am really missing some level of detail in the renderings or this reporter really missed a basic math/science lecture somewhere around 5th grade or so.
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 3:26 AM
Andrew|W Andrew|W is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardL View Post
Either I am really missing some level of detail in the renderings or this reporter really missed a basic math/science lecture somewhere around 5th grade or so.
Heh. I had to take a look back at the rendering to make sure that my eyes hadn't been deceived this whole time.
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 4:49 AM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever View Post
My understanding is that they will start the tower but aren't sure if it'll top out at 45 or 50 stories. If the leasing goes well during construction they'll throw on the extra five floors. Having a loaded and willing equity partner allows them to do this. Anyway, I guess ppl interpet things differently.
So if they add the extra floors this will be 220 meters right ?
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 8:42 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarta View Post
This classy building is a definite go. Hines would like to start and have the pilings in for the elevated plaza by the time the snows come. Next Spring, Hines would like to start building the plaza - from east to west. Once constructed, the plaza will serve as the staging area for the tower. Once the tower tops out, the plaza will be finished and landscaped. (The City has a perpetual recorded easement over much of the plaza.)
This is a little worrisome for me. Essentially, Hines is getting taxpayer dollars to build a staging platform for the construction of their tower. It all seems like a huge gamble to me... the "announcement" of financing could simply be a gambit to get the city to release funds for the deck, and Hines is hoping that it will get first-mover advantage and sign a big tenant.

Quote:
The only thing I would add is for there to be another path from the plaza to the Riverwalk from the north section of the plaza. Right now, the only access to the Riverwalk is provided at the south end of the plaza by an elevator or stairs at the north side of the Lake Street Bridge.
I agree, and I mentioned this issue to someone at the last meeting as we huddled around the model (was that you?)

If you care about this, I urge you to contact Alderman Reilly. I already emailed him, but I don't live in the 42nd so he's not inclined to pay attention to what I'm saying.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 11:30 AM
jarta jarta is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
This is a little worrisome for me. Essentially, Hines is getting taxpayer dollars to build a staging platform for the construction of their tower. It all seems like a huge gamble to me... the "announcement" of financing could simply be a gambit to get the city to release funds for the deck, and Hines is hoping that it will get first-mover advantage and sign a big tenant.



I agree, and I mentioned this issue to someone at the last meeting as we huddled around the model (was that you?)

If you care about this, I urge you to contact Alderman Reilly. I already emailed him, but I don't live in the 42nd so he's not inclined to pay attention to what I'm saying.
I am very surprised from the comments on another thread that someone from the Page would question the veracity of any developer. lol! As you know, I can be skeptical about things said by developers, too. This one seems financially solid to me.

The response by Hines when a question about no 2nd or southern access point was that the trains would prevent it. There is plenty of room between the east track and the river for another access point. Link to Site Plan: http://www.chicagoriverpoint.com/siteplan.pdf

If you look at the Site Plan for the development posted on the River Point web site, the current shoreline is the dashed line that angles in from the River. (There is a drain where the deepest penetration is, IIRR.) Hines apparently plans to re-bulkhead the riverbank to make it gently curve and a lot of the Riverwalk will be in what is now the River. If you are going to appropriate enough of the River to build the Riverwalk, why not grab another 10' to put in another elevator? However, it seems to me that at the northeast corner of the plaza, there is already room.

Go figure. I think the narrowing of the River by re-bulkheading the riverbank to include part of the River itself is part of the hidden cost that will be paid for by the TIF money. Good or bad, open or hidden, that's what is going to happen as part of the deal. (And, Hines plans to bulkhead Wolf Point and pick up part of the River there, too. Look at the plans. And, then use the acquired property as footings to build out into the Riverwalk setback. Is the eventual plan to make the Chicago Riverwalk as narrow as the San Antonio Riverwalk? Shouldn't people be up in arms about diminishing the size of the Confluence?)

It wasn't me you talked to.

Last edited by jarta; Jul 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM. Reason: Riverbank to Riverwalk. Add sentence. Add link.
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 7:14 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 7,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarta View Post
Is the eventual plan to make the Chicago Riverwalk as narrow as the San Antonio Riverwalk? Shouldn't people be up in arms about diminishing the size of the Confluence?)
That's so unrealistic it hurts my head just to read what you wrote. . . San Antonio's Riverwalk is (for all practical purposes) a man made waterway not unlike something you'd find in a shopping mall. . . in fact they drain it seasonally for cleaning purposes. . . at its widest it might be 25 feet across and if you jumped in you'd be lucky if your knees got wet. . . what will Chicago River NIMBY's feign worry for next?!?

. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 7:49 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Completely agree with Buckman and Ardecila in the skepticism they are raising. This is precisely what I was trying to get at 2 weeks ago. Big press conference held (of course with Rahm) announcing this as an actual spec deal, with $300 million equity inplace from Ivanhoe to the north. It's not a "real" spec development to me until construction actually begins on the tower itself with no pre-leasing. And no, they do not need to stage construction this way - to start so far in advance on the park (which in and of itself may not even begin for another half-year or more yet!), and then a year (or even more) later on the actual tower. There are always multiple solutions in engineering and construction - be ultra suspicious anytime you're told "it needs to occur this way", or "it needs to be phased this way"......very, very nearly never the case....

I think what we had a couple months ago was very likely largely a pr exercise brought to your by Hines and the city (with Ivanhoe agreeing to play along)........always look for ways to peel back as many layers of onion as possible....critical analysis and thinking are your friend - always.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Jul 13, 2012 at 8:48 PM.
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2012, 9:54 PM
jarta jarta is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago View Post
That's so unrealistic it hurts my head just to read what you wrote. . . San Antonio's Riverwalk is (for all practical purposes) a man made waterway not unlike something you'd find in a shopping mall. . . in fact they drain it seasonally for cleaning purposes. . . at its widest it might be 25 feet across and if you jumped in you'd be lucky if your knees got wet. . . what will Chicago River NIMBY's feign worry for next?!?

. . .
Yes, as you point out, it's an unrealistic overstatement made, mainly, to get a reaction. You have reacted.

I guess with Chicago River traffic (kayaks, rentals, private cruisers, barges, tour boats and water taxis) growing every year, who cares if a project encroaches into the River - as long as it's tall enough.

I really like 444 W. Lake. But, it's designed to encroach into the River. I thought that was a No No! Silly me!
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 4:54 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
While the Chicago River urban design guidelines may well discourage it in new PDs, the "water lots" established 150 years ago along this part of the river give owners the legal right to fill into the existing channel of the river. Looking at the 80-acre cadastral map, at Lake Street the water lots extend 233 feet east of the east line of Canal Street; and at the south line of Fulton Street they extend 129 feet east of Canal.
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 5:57 PM
jarta jarta is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
While the Chicago River urban design guidelines may well discourage it in new PDs, the "water lots" established 150 years ago along this part of the river give owners the legal right to fill into the existing channel of the river. Looking at the 80-acre cadastral map, at Lake Street the water lots extend 233 feet east of the east line of Canal Street; and at the south line of Fulton Street they extend 129 feet east of Canal.
Nice try, but ...........

I don't think the grant of water lot rights says anything like infilling or filling the River to the edge of the water lots. I think they were public docking (sort of parking) spaces for ships at wharves created by the 1848 Harbor Ordinance.

But, I guess I'll just have to read the 1847 statute and the 1848 documents again as to who owned the wharfs and what use could be made of them.

Last edited by jarta; Jul 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM. Reason: add 1847 statute
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 7:24 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarta View Post
Yes, as you point out, it's an unrealistic overstatement made, mainly, to get a reaction. You have reacted.

I guess with Chicago River traffic (kayaks, rentals, private cruisers, barges, tour boats and water taxis) growing every year, who cares if a project encroaches into the River - as long as it's tall enough.

I really like 444 W. Lake. But, it's designed to encroach into the River. I thought that was a No No! Silly me!
I had similar misgivings about construction of the river walk along the main branch a few years ago. IMO, there's a certain natural majesty in rivers that cut a wide swath through or around a city's downtown. In addition to the lake, the Chicago River is one of the city's few defining geographic features. Compared to the rivers of most other major American cities (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, St. Louis, Portland, etc.), though, it's already on the smaller side, and the further narrowing of it to create dubious public spaces is a definite concern.

IIRC, the whole reason Daly pursued the river walk is because of a trip to San Antonio; but the San Antonio River is much smaller and therefore provides a more intimate setting, which is why I think that project has been so successful. IMO, Chicago's version, as it has been thus far realized, artlessly apes the San Antonio experience. Unlike Millennium park—a real triumph of urban design—there's nothing bold or original or even all that engaging about it.

My hope is that, with the infrastructure in place, things might change in the next 10–20 years, and we'll see more exciting proposals about how to program this new public space. That said, I'm worried that the basic design of River Point's section of the river walk is so poor from the get-go that it will never adequately serve its intended purpose.

(BTW, even though I kinda agree with you, I don't think you don't have to be so flip. The hyperbole and sarcasm is off-putting.)
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 8:25 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
I think the construction of the riverwalk encourages designers to consider how their buildings will meet the river, rather than allowing them to stick a blank wall there like many others did prior to the Ordinance (Civic Opera, Chicago Mercantile, General Growth, IBM) It doesn't do any good to treat the river like a watery alley, either.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 9:17 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I think the construction of the riverwalk encourages designers to consider how their buildings will meet the river, rather than allowing them to stick a blank wall there like many others did prior to the Ordinance (Civic Opera, Chicago Mercantile, General Growth, IBM) It doesn't do any good to treat the river like a watery alley, either.
Many other designers were perfectly capable of addressing the river without the river walk, though (e.g., 333 W. Wacker). Perhaps the river shouldn't be treated as a watery alley, but that doesn't mean it should be treated as a watery street a la the San Antonio River. I personally think the canyon-like nature of the river (achieved in part by some of the sheer walls along its banks, e.g., Trump) creates a pretty awesome topographical effect in a city otherwise devoid of them. It would be a shame for that feature to be diminished.
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 11:44 PM
jarta jarta is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
I had similar misgivings about construction of the river walk along the main branch a few years ago. IMO, there's a certain natural majesty in rivers that cut a wide swath through or around a city's downtown. In addition to the lake, the Chicago River is one of the city's few defining geographic features. Compared to the rivers of most other major American cities (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, St. Louis, Portland, etc.), though, it's already on the smaller side, and the further narrowing of it to create dubious public spaces is a definite concern.

IIRC, the whole reason Daly pursued the river walk is because of a trip to San Antonio; but the San Antonio River is much smaller and therefore provides a more intimate setting, which is why I think that project has been so successful. IMO, Chicago's version, as it has been thus far realized, artlessly apes the San Antonio experience. Unlike Millennium park—a real triumph of urban design—there's nothing bold or original or even all that engaging about it.

My hope is that, with the infrastructure in place, things might change in the next 10–20 years, and we'll see more exciting proposals about how to program this new public space. That said, I'm worried that the basic design of River Point's section of the river walk is so poor from the get-go that it will never adequately serve its intended purpose.

(BTW, even though I kinda agree with you, I don't think you don't have to be so flip. The hyperbole and sarcasm is off-putting.)
I promise I'll try harder. I thought I was just complying with normal board posting.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...59#post5753359
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2012, 1:43 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
Many other designers were perfectly capable of addressing the river without the river walk, though (e.g., 333 W. Wacker). Perhaps the river shouldn't be treated as a watery alley, but that doesn't mean it should be treated as a watery street a la the San Antonio River. I personally think the canyon-like nature of the river (achieved in part by some of the sheer walls along its banks, e.g., Trump) creates a pretty awesome topographical effect in a city otherwise devoid of them. It would be a shame for that feature to be diminished.
I don't have a problem with Trump-esque buildings that arcade the riverwalk. In fact, I think it's awesome... I can imagine some really sculptural building that is designed as if the water has "eroded" a grotto and the riverwalk runs through it.

Applying some kind of rigid formula, in which the riverwalk must be a full setback, just creates boring monotony. There should be variation, so that the journey along the riverwalk takes a person through various architectural conditions. Fortunately, it seems like the city is allowing for flexibility in how the ordinance is applied.

If I were a city planner, I'd extract my pound of flesh though... since the ordinance mandates a 30' setback, the city should be compensated for the air rights if the developer chooses to arcade the riverwalk. The resulting funds could be used to link the riverwalk around (or through) bridge abutments.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2012, 3:38 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarta View Post
I don't think the grant of water lot rights says anything like infilling or filling the River to the edge of the water lots.
Why not? Isn't that the very point of water lots (as opposed to a pier line or bulkhead line): that the riparian owner can fill them in as he sees fit?
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2012, 4:56 AM
jarta jarta is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Why not? Isn't that the very point of water lots (as opposed to a pier line or bulkhead line): that the riparian owner can fill them in as he sees fit?
No, I think you are confusing the water or wharfing lots (named because they were on the water and had wharfs on the riverbank when original Water Street was vacated and which have actually now been built all the way out) and the old wharf privilege lots ("M3" on the old "Sidwell" plat map) or boat slip/parking spaces lying in the River which were merely appurtenant to old leases. Note the dotted lines in the middle of the 444 W. Lake property. That's the limit of the old water/wharfing lots. The addition noted by the OP is to the east of the dotted line and is what 444 W. Lake could fill in.

444 W. Lake, Riverbend and Fulton Market's current riverbank has long been built out to the eastern edge of the "new" water/wharfing lots. A possible exception is a very small notch just south of the drain at the south edge of vacated Fulton Market Street for 444 W. Lake. The eastern limits of the water/wharfing lots are the dark lines on the old plat map. (OP who provided a link to the old plat map doesn't say how much farther 444 W. Lake - or anyone else - could build out into the River. One inch? 10 feet? 50 feet?)

IIRR, when the Illinois and Michigan Canal was completed and opened in 1947-1948, the record keeping was so compromised about who "owned" what around the "Chicago Harbor" at the Confluence that the Illinois Legislature passed a statute saying all of the leased water/wharfing lots were canceled and returned to the City and all 3 Water Streets were vacated.

The City sold off the returned water/wharfing lots. Some, like at 444 W. Lake, River Bend and Fulton Market were reconfigured to add area. The original water/wharfing lots had earlier been leased out for 999 years and some new investors made fortunes buying them in fee. The docks at the edges of the water/wharfing lots had to have a certain height of the dock above the River water level and clearance along the bank for canal-type horse towing of goods to be disbursed along the waterfront. Note that the "M3" wharfing privileges for boat slip/parking spaces are parallel to and rather uniformly into the River from the dotted line that represented the original eastern limit of the water/wharfing lots. That's because the "Chicago Harbor" was then smaller and shallow and boats had to be parked "off-shore" rather than right at the edge of the water/wharfing lot.

The Confluence's "Chicago Harbor" was redredged when the Illinois Michigan Canal was completed to add depth to the "Chicago Harbor" and to give adjacent deep docking space right at the limit of the water/wharfing lots. The River's harbor size was necessarily somewhat altered. Some water/wharfing lots lost size; some gained size before the lots were sold. (Wolf Point lost area.) But, the harbor became, for that time, a "deep water" harbor rather than a small, shallow and swampy harbor beyond the edges of the water/wharfing lots. It took a decision by the Supreme Court of Illinois many years later to finally adjudicate that what was done was "legal" (mostly by a finding it was absolutely necessary and in the overall public interest).

See pages 32-33 and 90-91 of this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=Nmf...page&q&f=false

And, pages 238-239 of this link :http://books.google.com/books?id=wP0...0CEYQ6AEwADgK#

Last edited by jarta; Jul 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM. Reason: Add 2nd pargraph. Clean-up text.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.