CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS - Page 44

Patrick · #**861** Posted **Apr 27, 2012, 9:06 PM**

Wow I really hope this building is built! Design really works well in that location!

Zapatan · #**862** Posted **Apr 27, 2012, 9:10 PM**

Chicago's coming back baby!

pyropius · #**863** Posted **Apr 27, 2012, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

650' tall, 45 floors, retail (Starbucks, sandwich shop, fine dining restaurant)

I like the futuristic El. Is that part of the proposal too?

BraveNewWorld · #**864** Posted **Apr 27, 2012, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Chicago's coming back baby!

yeah it is! It needs some buildings in the 400-700 ft range, then a 600m tower, after that, it will have the most perfect skyline in the world!

ardecila · #**865** Posted **Apr 27, 2012, 9:42 PM**

TUP, the two retail spaces are at different levels. The Starbucks is at lobby level, so it's about 4' higher than Canal and a street-level door would be difficult. The "sandwich shop" is at the level of Canal, so it does have a street entrance, and you can see the interior hallway slopes down to link the two retail spaces.

Hines probably thinks the Starbucks doesn't need an exterior entrance because it won't be open outside of 9-5, and it will be mostly patronized by workers who are already in the building (whereas the sandwich shop might draw from surrounding areas). Starbucks still might request an external entrance, and it looks like they could have one that lets out onto that little elevated podium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standpoor

Lake Street itself clears the railroad tracks. As you can see from the second image, the podium clears the railroad tracks and then has a large deck above that. Is this thick deck necessary to carry the load of the park?

The thick deck isn't required structurally, but you need a thick deck to accommodate the root systems of trees. Otherwise, you'll have perpetual saplings.

Sometimes you can make the deck thinner and still increase the soil depth by putting the trees in planters, but this really only gets you an extra 18", because planters any taller than that are unpleasant. Or you can mound up the soil a few feet and make little hills for the trees to go in, but this adds a ton of weight.

Amtrak is also requiring that road access to Union Station be preserved, and the structure has to accommodate a roadway between the tracks and the river. The Riverbend building already has a tunnel through it for this reason. In the future, this could potentially be used for a fourth approach track, since the vertical clearance is high enough.

jcchii · #**866** Posted **Apr 27, 2012, 10:16 PM**

until there's detail on why this is back it seems safe to consider it a tease

Andrew|W · #**867** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

The biggest loss was the boat rental building IMO,
It'll be interesting to see what Goettsch does with the site to the south.

What, as far as you know, is Goettsch supposed to be doing to the south?

the urban politician · #**868** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 1:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcchii

until there's detail on why this is back it seems safe to consider it a tease

^ I doubt any more detail is needed.

Office vacancies are dropping, demand is slowly rising, the economy is picking up, older office buildings are being converted to hotel/residential; developers are preparing for the next round of class A office construction and are dusting off their (or preparing new) plans.

I'm too much of an amateur to know who will win, but I think this particular tower has the distinct advantage of being at a very prominent site with gorgeous views, while still being near transportation.

the urban politician · #**869** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 1:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

TUP, the two retail spaces are at different levels. The Starbucks is at lobby level, so it's about 4' higher than Canal and a street-level door would be difficult. The "sandwich shop" is at the level of Canal, so it does have a street entrance, and you can see the interior hallway slopes down to link the two retail spaces.

Hines probably thinks the Starbucks doesn't need an exterior entrance because it won't be open outside of 9-5, and it will be mostly patronized by workers who are already in the building (whereas the sandwich shop might draw from surrounding areas). Starbucks still might request an external entrance, and it looks like they could have one that lets out onto that little elevated podium.

^ I see what you're staying, thanks for pointing that out

chicubs111 · #**870** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

yeah it is! It needs some buildings in the 400-700 ft range, then a 600m tower, after that, it will have the most perfect skyline in the world!

Actually i think chicago needs more buildings in the 600 to 700 range...those heights seems to be harder to achieve on average in chicago

BraveNewWorld · #**871** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Actually i think chicago needs more buildings in the 600 to 700 range...those heights seems to be harder to achieve on average in chicago

Agreed. In Dubai, they are building 300-400 meter buildings left and right, and it's getting redundant. All I can think is "Could you build something that balances out the skyline ?" Honestly, when I see the skyline all I can think is how badly it needs some buildings in the 200 meter range, because right now it looks like they have one street that is densely packed with 400m buildings, and it looks outlandish. Dont get me wrong, i like Dubai's skyline, but it needs more density in a more spread out area, if that makes sense.

Anyways though, i agree. I really like the height and architectural style of this building. It's exactly what Chicago needs, and is filling in a prominent and important area in the Chicago skyline.

Kippis · #**872** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 3:10 AM**

Well rip my underpants off and call me Shirley, it's back! This was definitely one of my favorite proposals to come out of the boom, even though for the prominent location that it's at, I'll always hold the conviction that the site is deserving of a taller tower.

Nevertheless, I still love it, especially that swank plaza. I've been aching to see that "vacant" lot (if you disregard le Metra tracks) get developed for a loooooong time...

the urban politician · #**873** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 3:35 AM**

^ One of the other features of this project that I like is that it decks over the Metra tracks.

I don't know what it is about decking over stuff--whether it be roads or rails, but the idea of a once open route suddenly being submerged to accommodate the growth needs of the mighty city just gives me a massive hard on (figuratively speaking, of course)

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**874** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 5:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standpoor

Lake Street itself clears the railroad tracks. As you can see from the second image, the podium clears the railroad tracks and then has a large deck above that. Is this thick deck necessary to carry the load of the park? I know nothing about structural engineering but that looks like a pretty wide gap to clear, so I imagine it is necessary to have a pretty beefy support structure. Is that why it needs to be so elevated over Lake Street?

Even if this thick deck is necessary, it seems they could have designed the Lake Street parts to interact with street level a little better. Maybe move the stairs closer to the building and have a larger at grade entrance to the park. The current entrance by the stairs seems rather small.

Also, according to the first image, the Lake Street wall will have five random doors which open into small hallways, stairwells (fire exit?), and mechanical rooms. That just seems odd. Nothing could have been done to break up this giant wall and make it feel less like the back end of a movie theater. Other than that, I like it and it will make a good book end to the views down the river. Although I will miss being able to see the brown line, UP metra trains and Milwaukee district trains in one shot.

Yeah, these are my issues with the podium (and from street level it will read more like a podium than a public park). That sheer wall and those narrow stairs aren't exactly inviting to Lake Street pedestrians. IMO, the design would benefit from some intermediate level changes à la Trump, even if it meant smaller-scaled trees or shrubs for that portion.

And how are people meant to access the riverwalk? Is that an elevator in the southeast corner? Speaking of the riverwalk, here again the design pretty artlessly handles the level change with another sheer wall, this one even more immense. In the rendering, it looks like the public space is being squeezed as much as possible against the river.

Otherwise, I'm happy with the design. I do like the tower; I think that parabolic cutaway at the base could have a really big impact if the whole thing is executed well.

Wasn't there some talk at one point about preservation of that existing small structure just to the east of the tracks at the southern end of the site? (Does it even still exist?)

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**875** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don't know what it is about decking over stuff--whether it be roads or rails, but the idea of a once open route suddenly being submerged to accommodate the growth needs of the mighty city just gives me a massive hard on (figuratively speaking, of course)

I guess there is something somewhat sexual about a train entering a tunnel...

BraveNewWorld · #**876** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 6:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I guess there is something somewhat sexual about a train entering a tunnel...

LOL

ardecila · #**877** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 6:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Wasn't there some talk at one point about preservation of that existing small structure just to the east of the tracks at the southern end of the site? (Does it even still exist?)

I forgot about that, but yes, somebody at Landmarks was pushing Hines to preserve and possibly relocate the Lake Street Interlocking tower. According to honte (what happened to him?) the city even set aside some TIF money for it, but the LaSalle/Central TIF documents have no record of it.

denizen467 · #**878** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 8:55 PM**

While we wait for spyguy to fill us in on where he got the info ... I just want to admire how incredibly realistic renders have gotten lately. The one above the river looking westwards (with the new el cars) looks like it is blending photographs of existing buildings with high-quality renders of the new building. And the grass and trees are just so photorealistic. It's actually getting kind of scary.

spyguy · #**879** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew|W

What, as far as you know, is Goettsch supposed to be doing to the south?

~45 story, +/- 1 million square foot office tower designed by Goettsch, developed by a former Buck exec

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

While we wait for spyguy to fill us in on where he got the info

What info exactly? It's been widely reported for several months that Hines has been shopping a downscaled version of their previous plans to potential tenants. Now the website has been updated (recently, I might add) accordingly.

denizen467 · #**880** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 10:20 PM**

^ A bunch of people asked and you hadn't replied. I understand there is a project website, but I was hoping to see something indicating that it's not a stale website from past years (whether abandoned or just a lingering hope of Hines). I guess you're going on the fact that you have been checking the website pretty regularly and noticed that it has changed. (I had noticed that the brochure PDF is no newer than Summer 2011, so was wondering.) But your "it's back" declaration sounded so enticing ... is there anything else you can (not) tell us?