HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 6:58 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 994
A quick overlay... not 100% accurate, but it gets it close enough.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 7:18 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
I think the previous design had a lot more cohesiveness and looked very graceful over the river. This new render/proposal has a bit of in your face magnificence, begging viewers to look at it rather than 150 or 444. And really the lack of cohesiveness doesn't matter that much, because in terms of the skyline, the South and East towers will stand out a lot more and be much more recognizable. The East tower's design is now vastly superior to the blob it was before. It also looks like they've added green space in front of it; I'm not sure what spurred that.
Agreed.

Though I think the new East Tower is a sizable improvement I actually think the new South Tower loses some of its more refinded subtleties. It looks 1980s to me. Without much in the way in the way of significant added height. Plus I find spires to be often overused (especially in NYC over the last decade) and this tower is a case in point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 8:58 PM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 151
South tower kind of reminds me of the new Comcast Center

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 9:04 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
A quick overlay... not 100% accurate, but it gets it close enough.
Nice! But yea the new rendering is a little bigger so the overlap slightly under exaggerates the height change, which is a good thing. It will really be over 1000 to the roof instead of ~975' which you get when you overlap them.

I'm not sure if I explained that correctly but hopefully someone understands me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 9:09 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
South tower kind of reminds me of the new Comcast Center

Agreed, like a cross between that and the Nordstrom tower. I think this design would be cooler with more height and bulk. I'm not complaing though.

My guess the community meeting would be soon.
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 9:16 PM
ChiTownWonder's Avatar
ChiTownWonder ChiTownWonder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Orland Park
Posts: 477
i think this is a great bulkiness. all of the Chicago supertalls are very bulky and thick, its about time we got a good skinny supertall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 9:59 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Nice! But yea the new rendering is a little bigger so the overlap slightly under exaggerates the height change, which is a good thing. It will really be over 1000 to the roof instead of ~975' which you get when you overlap them.

I'm not sure if I explained that correctly but hopefully someone understands me.
I did a quick scaling of the new image to match the proportions of the foreground elements, match the river edge, match the Kinzie Street bridge, and match Merchandise Mart... so unless they manipulated the perspective of only the top half of the render, it should be fairly accurate.

The sky might be throwing people off, since they used the exact same background image (a northern sky sunset? come on), but they placed it a touch higher in the new image to add a touch more contrast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 10:30 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
..This new render/proposal has a bit of in your face magnificence, begging viewers to look at it rather than 150 or 444..
As it should; it's Wolf Point! This new proposal is world class. The spire is a nice touch. The proportions seem inspired by 30 Rock. Gorgeous. Imagine a tourist cruising up the River from Union Station: Sears > 150 > This > 333 N LaSalle > Trump > the four beauties at MiWack > Wanda Vista. Wow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 10:50 PM
Neuman's Avatar
Neuman Neuman is online now
The Moon Rulez! #1
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northside
Posts: 132
Wow......

That's unreal...
__________________
Alright, when I say your name, you say 'here.' And we will assume 'here' is short for 'here I am...rock you like a hurricane. -Ignignokt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 10:53 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,273
I think the setbacks need a bit of work. Multiple setbacks can create a nice visual rhythm and progression like on 30 rock. But the setbacks on the south tower particularly the second pair of setbacks don't seem to accomplish that. From the render it doesn't seem that they distinguish themselves enough from the central portion of the tower or align themselves well between the first setback and the roof. It reads more like the shoulders of 311 S. wacker than the nicely aligned steps of 30 rock.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 12:11 AM
Pilton Pilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 281
The altered plan for WP seems much better to me. More elegant, less blobby south and east towers. The total effect is a unified whole. The west tower no longer looks like an afterthought. And, the new south tower stands like an exclamation point at the end of the river canyon.

We need a rendering showing a view from the east which looks west to get the full effect of the new setbacks.

There will need to be a new, improved traffic study to support the sustainability of the 2 additional towers at WP. It will be interesting to see if the starting point of the projections is after completion of the WP west tower, RiverPoint and 150 Riverside on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic in the WP extended area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 12:51 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 619
^Pilton/Jarta, all "traffic studies" are red herrings and I think most of the forumers on this thread realize this (the only ones who might not, probably have a distorted view (oops, excuse the pun :-) ) by living in the immediate neighborhood)... whatever changes to the program and additional highrises that might happen here will have negligible effect on traffic, unless they change both towers to hotels, and even then it would not really be a significant issue...
Orleans/Lake/Wacker/Canal/Kinzie can easily handle all of the traffic... will there be congestion, particularly during rush hours? of course, but that's part of why we all love dense cities and I can't remember when congestion in that part of our city has ever been an issue... (or, really, in any part of our city including Streeterville)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 1:48 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,718
To state what should be obvious: There is no reason at all to think this new design is anything other than a placeholder, just like the previous version..............we don't even know who the architects will be for the S and E towers - it might end up being PCP for one or both, sure, but it could very well be another firm(s) for one or both of them.......
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 1:49 PM
go go white sox go go white sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 136
I love the revisions. How is it that developers are able to make such drastic changes just like that, on a project so massive?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 2:19 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,780
So, which building is going to be Chicago's new third tallest, Wanda Vista or Wolf Point South?

The question is somewhat rhetorical.

This horse race is going to be fun.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 2:22 PM
Pilton Pilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
Orleans/Lake/Wacker/Canal/Kinzie can easily handle all of the traffic... will there be congestion, particularly during rush hours? of course, but that's part of why we all love dense cities ...
Easily? Isn't that what the traffic study is supposed to measure? Things like - will there be enough space for people, bikes and vehicles to easily move about? And, if not, what infrastructure improvements need to and/or can be made to allow even greater density now - and into the future?

I was not talking about rush hours. Orleans, Kinzie, Canal, Wacker and Lake are all stressed during rush hours (plural) by people, bikes and vehicles right now.

The new traffic study was a mandatory requirement of the permission granted to build the WP west tower. The ultimate decision is up to the Plan Commission, Reilly, Rahm and the City Council. (One thing seems clear, though. There are those who want to put the dedicated bike lanes on Kinzie in play.)

The new WP plan is architecturally more significant, elegant and appropriate to the WP site, IMO. No comment on my liking the new plan? More density all that matters?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 2:41 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilton View Post
Easily? Isn't that what the traffic study is supposed to measure? Things like - will there be enough space for people, bikes and vehicles to easily move about? And, if not, what infrastructure improvements need to and/or can be made to allow even greater density now - and into the future?

I was not talking about rush hours. Orleans, Kinzie, Canal, Wacker and Lake are all stressed during rush hours (plural) by people, bikes and vehicles right now.

The new traffic study was a mandatory requirement of the permission granted to build the WP west tower. The ultimate decision is up to the Plan Commission, Reilly, Rahm and the City Council. (One thing seems clear, though. There are those who want to put the dedicated bike lanes on Kinzie in play.)

The new WP plan is architecturally more significant, elegant and appropriate to the WP site, IMO. No comment on my liking the new plan? More density all that matters?
I'm sure that an updated traffic study will be submitted. However, the overall project was approved for 1,000+ parking spaces, which has already been factored into things, so there's that...

Congratulations on liking the plan, I do to.

Okay, the streets are stressed/congested, what about it? That's not going to change.

Welcome to a downtown metropolis
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 2:43 PM
jcchii's Avatar
jcchii jcchii is offline
Content provider
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: city on the take
Posts: 3,119
better. pretty building really
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 2:49 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is online now
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 584
I may be in the minority but it looked better before.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 2:58 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilton View Post
Easily? Isn't that what the traffic study is supposed to measure? Things like - will there be enough space for people, bikes and vehicles to easily move about? And, if not, what infrastructure improvements need to and/or can be made to allow even greater density now - and into the future?

I was not talking about rush hours. Orleans, Kinzie, Canal, Wacker and Lake are all stressed during rush hours (plural) by people, bikes and vehicles right now.

The new traffic study was a mandatory requirement of the permission granted to build the WP west tower. The ultimate decision is up to the Plan Commission, Reilly, Rahm and the City Council. (One thing seems clear, though. There are those who want to put the dedicated bike lanes on Kinzie in play.)

The new WP plan is architecturally more significant, elegant and appropriate to the WP site, IMO. No comment on my liking the new plan? More density all that matters?

What "infrastructure improvements" might need to be made as a result of another red herring traffic study specifically? With the exception of tinkering with dedicated turn lanes, etc. there is really nothing that could or should be done... our city grid (or grids if you count the layering of Wacker/Carroll, etc.) are more than capable of handling this development and so much more... my post was simply to point out the inherent nimby pandering of all "traffic studies"
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:07 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.