CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS - Page 7

LoyolaBeachView · #**121** Posted **May 16, 2007, 1:01 PM**

Effing great design, really throws just how awful that Arquitectonica tower is into stark relief. I have no problem with Hines developing Wolf Point (see discussion in Chicago Boom thread). I would much rather have a solid building than a tall POS. This is just great and reminds me of the cool stuff going on in London, Paris and Madrid.

Mr Roboto · #**122** Posted **May 16, 2007, 2:27 PM**

I really like this design, it looks different from anything else in the city so far, and at such a prominent location, and even if it is only about 600', it will really stand out in a way similar to the smurfit stone building at its spot. I like the fact the development continues farther west, expanding downtown, and closing in the river on that siede. If built, it will look fargin awesome.

LoyolaBeachView · #**123** Posted **May 16, 2007, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

I had to do the side by side comparison.

We should send the developers a link to our new size request. wink

I agree that this looks even better as a taller building, but let's say that Wolf Point is developed into a 1000 footer--in that case, i would rather have this in the 700 (maybe 800) foot range to accentuate the terraced aesthetic that our beloved skyline is so famous for. Whatever happens, this is sure to be a stunner.

MrLakepoint · #**124** Posted **May 16, 2007, 6:09 PM**

* Moderator edit *

let's please not foul up this thread with political BS

jcchii · #**125** Posted **May 16, 2007, 6:48 PM**

* Moderator edit *

let's please not foul up this thread with political BS

museumparktom · #**126** Posted **May 16, 2007, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

Museumparktom,

I'd be happy to, but I'm in the burbs. Probably won't be downtown for a few more weeks. If I find myself down there I'll take the shots.

aaron38 no problems - I thought you were in the city. I'll take a walk.

museumparktom · #**127** Posted **May 16, 2007, 9:11 PM**

Unlike most buildings this one will be in your view from almost any spot on the river.
At the Hyatt

Directly Accross from Trump

From the middle of the State Street Bridge

Marvel 33 · #**128** Posted **May 24, 2007, 5:11 PM**

As of yesterday the height quoted in this article is the official and latest height but there's a chance that this could change in the near future. We're supposed to get an update on this project sometime in mid-July.

So spyguy, you may want to update the height of the building on page #1 for the time being.

http://www.newcityskyline.com/200Nor...aProposed.html

budman · #**129** Posted **May 24, 2007, 7:29 PM**

^Great article marvel. I think we should be happy with 700 feet...its a beautiful tower with a great integration with public space. No need to get greedy on the height.

bnk · #**130** Posted **May 24, 2007, 8:08 PM**

Good article indeed,very detailed thanks.

aaron38 · #**131** Posted **May 24, 2007, 9:32 PM**

I agree. 700ft = IBM, which is just fine.

simcityaustin · #**132** Posted **May 24, 2007, 11:45 PM**

Doe it look like 700ft in the render though? It looks a good bit shorter to me in the render.

NYC2ATX · #**133** Posted **May 24, 2007, 11:57 PM**

yea this is a very beautiful building, one of my favorites of all the projects recently proposed for chicago. The Chicago river is becoming a great urban canyon. Its absolutely fantastic.

SamInTheLoop · #**134** Posted **May 25, 2007, 12:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvel 33

As of yesterday the height quoted in this article is the official and latest height but there's a chance that this could change in the near future. We're supposed to get an update on this project sometime in mid-July.

So spyguy, you may want to update the height of the building on page #1 for the time being.

http://www.newcityskyline.com/200Nor...aProposed.html

Thanks for all the great work you guys are doing Marvel.
My guess was that the current design clocked in at around 700' - 50 stories plus what seem to be some fairly tall amenity levels, so it certainly couldn't be that much shorter than 700'....

I am very intrigued by what you mention regarding a chance height could change in near future (perhaps by your update in July?). Here's some speculation: Hines is very close to landing a large anchor tenant. The most obvious suspect is of course William Blair, but there are 2 or 3 others who could possibly fit the bill. Perhaps with a 400,000 sf tenant in hand, they would feel comfortable with a 5-10 floor expansion?? Either way, imo this is a beautiful project and will enhance the riverfront and skyline in a huge way...I've mentioned before, but if I were Hines I would be extremely confident about this tower's prospects, and would officially launch this even on 100% spec if they failed to land an anchor by this fall. For any financial, professional, business services or law firm that wants to make a major image statement in a brand new space downtown, 200 N. Riverside would be the logical choice....

toddguy · #**135** Posted **May 25, 2007, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle2

Here is a little diagram I drew up estimating the height.

So my best guess is 697 feet.

looks like you were pretty accurate (despite my other post in this thread).

nomarandlee · #**136** Posted **May 25, 2007, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvel 33

As of yesterday the height quoted in this article is the official and latest height but there's a chance that this could change in the near future. We're supposed to get an update on this project sometime in mid-July.

So spyguy, you may want to update the height of the building on page #1 for the time being.

http://www.newcityskyline.com/200Nor...aProposed.html

Great informative article Marvel. I wonder if you could clear up one paragraph for me in it though....

Quote:

The original project design includes a public boat house that would be operated by the City of Chicago to accommodate kayaks, canoes and crew boats as well as offer boat storage, locker rooms, a multipurpose gathering space, staff offices and an elevated, covered observation terrace. The developer is not certain if this portion will still be included.

Which portion is it that may not be included? The observational terrace or the whole public boat house?

DePaul Bunyan · #**137** Posted **May 25, 2007, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Thanks for all the great work you guys are doing Marvel.
My guess was that the current design clocked in at around 700' - 50 stories plus what seem to be some fairly tall amenity levels, so it certainly couldn't be that much shorter than 700'....

I am very intrigued by what you mention regarding a chance height could change in near future (perhaps by your update in July?). Here's some speculation: Hines is very close to landing a large anchor tenant. The most obvious suspect is of course William Blair, but there are 2 or 3 others who could possibly fit the bill. Perhaps with a 400,000 sf tenant in hand, they would feel comfortable with a 5-10 floor expansion?? Either way, imo this is a beautiful project and will enhance the riverfront and skyline in a huge way...I've mentioned before, but if I were Hines I would be extremely confident about this tower's prospects, and would officially launch this even on 100% spec if they failed to land an anchor by this fall. For any financial, professional, business services or law firm that wants to make a major image statement in a brand new space downtown, 200 N. Riverside would be the logical choice....

Screw that. If they land a big tenant they should add 15-20 floors of condos. The market may be slowing, but they wouldn't have a whole lot to sell and the views would be amazing. It's also very close to public transportation. They could have one express elevator to a separate sky lobby for residents, and then local elevators for the condo and amenity floors. Or they could have the residential elevators on the exterior, where the curved faces of the building meet on the north and south corners of the building. Longest exterior elevator run anybody? If this one touches or goes over 800 feet it will be a home run. It's going to need a lot of height, IBM is almost 700, and Trump and WV both clear 1,000 easily. This building is so slick-looking it deserves to be a lot taller.

VivaLFuego · #**138** Posted **May 25, 2007, 2:21 PM**

I'm really totally fine with the height. From ground-level (which the rendering is not), this will be spectacular. The Riverbend condos and 333 Wacker are both a few hundred feet shorter, and they're already quite impressive in their location as-is. 700ft tall, with full width for the full height of the building, will still make for an incredible terminating view (how tall is CBOT? Yeah.)

I'm really not sure if the site is big enough for a mixed-use super tall...you really need alot of space to deal with elevators and mechanicals, and it's a decent-sized site, but nothing like the other large mixed-use buildings in town (900N Michigan, JHC, Chicago Place, Water Tower, etc.)

2PRUROCKS! · #**139** Posted **May 25, 2007, 8:54 PM**

Great article Marvel! You folks over at New City Skyline have been getting a lot of scoops lately...keep up the great work!

I love this building. I was a little disappointed by 300 NL. It will be a handsome building and well detailed, but I thought it was overly contextual and boxy (with its hybrid of art deco and international style modernism) and I was hoping for something more unique at least for Chicago from Pickard Chilton.

200 N. Riverside is great, the type of building I was hoping from these guys! It is perfect for the site. I hope it is as tall as possible, but I would be very happy with 700ft. I hope they keep the boat house/dock. What are the issues with that?

Steely Dan · #**140** Posted **May 25, 2007, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Quote:

The original project design includes a public boat house that would be operated by the City of Chicago to accommodate kayaks, canoes and crew boats as well as offer boat storage, locker rooms, a multipurpose gathering space, staff offices and an elevated, covered observation terrace. The developer is not certain if this portion will still be included.

Which portion is it that may not be included? The observational terrace or the whole public boat house?

yes, that part of the article concerned me as well. what portion is the developer not sure will be included? mario, can you clear up the confusion in the article? without the whole riverside plaza and the activity-spawning boathouse facilities, this project goes down several notches in my book. sure, the tower is nice enough i suppose, but it's the ground level activity along the riverfront that i'm far more excited about.