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
     
     
  #941  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 10:17 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 Via Chicago View Post
ugh. can we please put a stop this this TIF b.s. if Hines is going to build a spec tower thats nice and all but i dont see why taxpayers need to be brought into it, especially considering the state of city finances.
I'm inclined to agree. How does a park that small cost $29 million anyway?
     
     
  #942  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 10:22 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is online now
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It's 7 stories shorter and has no hotel tower. Some extraneous stuff like the boathouse was also axed.
I'm actually pleased that the adjoining hotel got scratched from the plans if only because I have hopes of a taller tower going up at a later date.

Granted I don't know the logistical and engineering restrictions that hemmed in lot to the north will present but if River Point and Wolf Point end up a massive success then perhaps it would spur some developer down the line to build a highly distinguishable trophy tower in its own right as opposed to an ancillary tower as the Hines hotel was destined to be.
     
     
  #943  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 10:43 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Just a reminder that $30 million in TIF was approved almost four years to the date for this project. I think half a million or so was for relocating the historic switching station. So there's really nothing new here on that front.
     
     
  #944  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 11:00 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
I'm inclined to agree. How does a park that small cost $29 million anyway?
Railroad tracks + Redefining the river edge = expensive.
     
     
  #945  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 11:19 PM
Chicago_Forever's Avatar
Chicago_Forever Chicago_Forever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chi-River North
Posts: 421
Exactly!

Here are Reiley's reason for agreeing with the TIF which I agree with.

“It’s a substantial amount of money. But it’s an incredibly complex project that spans a number of railroad tracks. It’s no small engineering feat to deck over an active railway. The ventilation alone is incredibly costly,” Reilly said.

“Without this TIF assistance, a project like this could not move forward and we wouldn’t have a beautiful piece of open space to show for it. It will be privately maintained in perpetuity, but will be a public amenity to be enjoyed by all.”http://www.suntimes.com/business/125...r-on-spec.html




BY DAVID ROEDER and FRAN SPIELMAN Staff Reporters May 16, 2012 12:28PM
Reprints

developers joined with Mayor Rahm Emanuel to announce revised plans Wednesday for a 45-story office building in the West Loop, portraying it as a sign of growing confidence in Chicago and a pro-business attitude at City Hall.
     
     
  #946  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 12:51 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
Exactly!

Here are Reiley's reason for agreeing with the TIF which I agree with.

“It’s a substantial amount of money. But it’s an incredibly complex project that spans a number of railroad tracks. It’s no small engineering feat to deck over an active railway. The ventilation alone is incredibly costly,” Reilly said.

“Without this TIF assistance, a project like this could not move forward and we wouldn’t have a beautiful piece of open space to show for it. It will be privately maintained in perpetuity, but will be a public amenity to be enjoyed by all.”http://www.suntimes.com/business/125...r-on-spec.html




BY DAVID ROEDER and FRAN SPIELMAN Staff Reporters May 16, 2012 12:28PM
Reprints

developers joined with Mayor Rahm Emanuel to announce revised plans Wednesday for a 45-story office building in the West Loop, portraying it as a sign of growing confidence in Chicago and a pro-business attitude at City Hall.
So this is completely approved right ? Now we are just waiting for construction to start ?
     
     
  #947  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 12:56 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
This is really unbelievably great news. This tower has a great location, great size, and a pretty good design. Its nice to see that its going to get moving. I certainly wasn't expecting to see an office tower moving along so soon, and I'm glad its this one.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
     
     
  #948  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 1:07 AM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
This is really unbelievably great news. This tower has a great location, great size, and a pretty good design. Its nice to see that its going to get moving. I certainly wasn't expecting to see an office tower moving along so soon, and I'm glad its this one.
Yeah I couldn't be more excited about this one, this type of architecture is exactly what Chicago, and this area needs. Couldn't imagine a better looking building for this spot.
     
     
  #949  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 1:09 AM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,054
Wow that was fast, great news. This and the former Waterview site will make this area perfect.
     
     
  #950  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 2:11 AM
markh9's Avatar
markh9 markh9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 132
Can't wait to see these views fill in!







This whole area should look fantastic in 10 years. It's almost embarrassing that it has taken so long for this area of prime riverfront property to be developed, but the benefits of holding out for a design such as this greatly outweigh the negatives. Factoring the relatively imminent completion of Waterview, I can't wait to see how this view shapes up in 2025.
     
     
  #951  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 2:50 AM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by markh9 View Post
Can't wait to see these views fill in!




.
Just thinking how prominant this site is going to be. In this pic is the very popular 333 West Wacker Drive is...

Height
149 m (489 ft)

Floor count 36
864,200 sq ft (80,290 m2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/333_Wacker_Drive


This one seems also curved on the river will be 161 feet taller than 333 and similar in sq ft. This is going to be a very popular and visible addtion to the skyline west of the river and right next to the train stations



333 on right and it will be 200 feet taller than the Riverbend condo [ tallest on the left ]

With Wolf Point in the middle going up someday, the river cruise is going to be a blast.

Last edited by bnk; May 17, 2012 at 3:17 AM.
     
     
  #952  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 4:17 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 rgolch View Post
I wonder if this building will effect the office component of Wolf Point. On the one hand, it could take potential clients out of the picture for Wolf Point. On the other hand, I could see it causing the Wolf Point developers to feel some pressure to start construction so as to not miss out on other future prospects.
The first phase of Wolf Point is residential. The later phases probably won't come for another 4-5 years under the most rosy scenario.

The last boom provided us with a new signature office tower roughly every 2 years, so certainly 4 years after River Point there will probably be a market for another signature tower.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #953  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 4:39 AM
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 untitledreality View Post
Railroad tracks + Redefining the river edge = expensive.
Here's how it was worded in the Crain's blog post:

Quote:
The $29 million will go not for the tower itself but an adjacent 1.5-acre public park. Both the tower and the park will be built on a platform atop Metra and Amtrak railroad tracks.
Unless Greg Hinz has the details wrong (which I recognize is a likely possibility), the developer was already planning on building a "platform" for the tower. Is the extension of that platform past the tracks really a $29 million engineering feat? (Note that Hinz doesn't mention the river walk, either.) I guess I was under the impression that Hines would have had to deal with the railroad in some capacity, anyway. Maybe it wouldn't have been a $29 million platform extension, but it surely would have cost something.

I'm also skeptical about the cost of "redefining the river's edge." If you compare the drawings to aerial photographs, you can pretty clearly see that this isn't going to be some huge change like we saw along the main branch of the river. It actually looks like it will be pretty minor.

My main beef is with the park's design. It presents such a tall, sheer wall to Lake Street that I doubt it'll end up attracting anyone but the tower's office workers. Were it more accessible, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the TIF money. But I don't think it will be; in fact, it seems designed so that it won't be.
     
     
  #954  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 4:49 AM
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 markh9 View Post
That two-story structure with the red roof in the center of the photograph is the building I had mentioned earlier. There were initially plans to save it—I guess it has some historical significance—but I guess they've been scuttled.
     
     
  #955  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 4:52 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
My main beef is with the park's design. It presents such a tall, sheer wall to Lake Street that I doubt it'll end up attracting anyone but the tower's office workers. Were it more accessible, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the TIF money. But I don't think it will be; in fact, it seems designed so that it won't be.
^ And how could what you are asking possibly be accomplished while still accommodating the Metra and Amtrak trains that would be running underneath? It simply has to be an elevated plaza.

The renderings show 3 different stairways to get to this park from street level, in addition to one sloped path probably designed for the handicapped. Access should not be an issue.

It's not a huge park, I agree, but considering that it completes a portion of the river walk, still adds public greenspace on a prominent site and (my favorite, of course) buries the train under stunning architecture, Chicago wins.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
     
     
  #956  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 5:29 AM
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 the urban politician View Post
^ And how could what you are asking possibly be accomplished while still accommodating the Metra and Amtrak trains that would be running underneath? It simply has to be an elevated plaza.
The platform doesn't need to be as tall as currently planned. It looks like spyguy's model photos and renderings have been removed, but you can see what I'm talking about in this shot from Chicago Real Estate Daily:



See that huge chunk above the platform "tunnel"? I think it's a full story tall. The trains already pass beneath the Lake Street "bridge", so why would they suddenly need an extra 10+ feet of space overhead to pass under what is, essentially, a really wide bridge?

Furthermore, it's unique to the the revived project. River Point 1.0 didn't seem to have this problem; along Lake Street, the park appears to simply extend from the sidewalk without any change in elevation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post

     
     
  #957  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 6:19 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
Unless Greg Hinz has the details wrong (which I recognize is a likely possibility), the developer was already planning on building a "platform" for the tower. Is the extension of that platform past the tracks really a $29 million engineering feat? (Note that Hinz doesn't mention the river walk, either.) I guess I was under the impression that Hines would have had to deal with the railroad in some capacity, anyway. Maybe it wouldn't have been a $29 million platform extension, but it surely would have cost something.
The tower has a conventional caisson foundation and its footprint lies entirely on the current parking lot. The platform is only necessary in order to build the plaza.

I share your frustration about the design facing Lake Street. I've theorized that the extreme depth of the platform is to accommodate the root systems of trees, and the site plan shows a large grove of trees very close to Lake. IMO they should move the trees and create a continuous seam between street and plaza.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #958  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 6:32 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is online now
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
Man do I feel the first edition plaza and stair cases was FAR superior to this current one. I know the chances are close to nil but I would love to see the first version of the plaza revitalized somehow.

Was there ever word or speculation about what was the cause for the change from the imperial steps design to the ramp design. Is it as simple as complying with ADA regulations?
     
     
  #959  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 1:59 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
That two-story structure with the red roof in the center of the photograph is the building I had mentioned earlier. There were initially plans to save it—I guess it has some historical significance—but I guess they've been scuttled.
I was curious about that too. I thought they eventually decided to move it to another park district location but I only vaguely recall this. Does anybody know what the current plan would be? Or if there even is a plan?
     
     
  #960  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 2:10 PM
schwerve schwerve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
See that huge chunk above the platform "tunnel"? I think it's a full story tall. The trains already pass beneath the Lake Street "bridge", so why would they suddenly need an extra 10+ feet of space overhead to pass under what is, essentially, a really wide bridge?
The entire lot slopes south and east. The current design appears to set the height of the park based upon the requirements of the north portal and maintain that height to Lake Street. Not sure if that was overlooked in the initial designs or changed due to costs.
     
     
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 1:29 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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