CHICAGO | Wolf Point - West Tower | 493 FT | 48 FLOORS

[Standpoor]

^^^

Thank you. To pretend that a bunch of trucked in dirt is even remotely natural is absurd and what is it, 300 yards of river back at most. Let us focus preservation of riverbanks in the neighborhoods where it belongs and focus on creating a riverwalk where you can walk from Kinzie to Marina towers unimpeded. One look at his picture will tell you it has seen some heavy use.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

How and why is this a good location for park space?

Perhaps I'm a Jane Jacobsian purist in my general disdain for urban "open space" and city-killing parks, but I feel 22% site coverage is hardly something to be proud of here, and it makes it even more likely (given the isolated site and limited access points) that rather than serve as a vibrant new mini-neighborhood, the development will become a collection of lifeless sculptures with a wind-swept open space that is completely dead other than weekday lunch hours.

I am not a Jane Jacobin purist but I agree with you. It is just a hard site to induce traffic. It will all be people going to and from work but I think that is the best this site could hope for, any other use would be too difficult. It is just too hard to get too, excluding the east tower facing Orleans. That is why a water taxi stop would be important. It would make it easier for people to get to and from the open space, work, and other points downtown, otherwise people will just skip it. Residential or commercial would also be equally dead, in that there would be no other reason for people to go over there. It would just be residents and that would not be enough to keep businesses open. Just look at Kinzie and Orleans, everything surrounding wolf point is an inhospitable fortress.

I know nothing of wind physics, do you really think this will be extremely windswept? It seems fairly contained. I can see wind blowing down the street but not so much in the plaza, am I wrong.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Chief Blackhawk

If you claim that you are a man of both aesthetics and honesty, I don't understand how you can find any of those structures "appealing."

They are great looking buildings. I don't understand how you can find any of those structures unappealing. Maybe you don't like it, but that is your opinion. The design of these buildings could be better, but I would still rate it an solid 8/10. You can't look at these buildings and honestly say they are ugly, or say they are boring. Is it a bit uninspired, sure, but they are still some nice looking buildings.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by Chief Blackhawk

If you claim that you are a man of both aesthetics and honesty, I don't understand how you can find any of those structures "appealing."

LOL.....

I don't want to belabor the point, because I think I've had my fair share of posts on this subject in the past few days. I don't want to wear out my welcome, or start getting the wrath of the Chicago mods. So I'll make these my last comments for the foreseeable future.

Basically, I think whats presented so far is pretty graceful and interesting; it definitely has the potentially is becoming something really nice. First, if you look at the south face of the buildings (rendering looking north), I very much like the layered look of the glass, and the small gap and indentation between each side. I think the faceting of the curtain wall is a nice touch, as it's not just a simple box, or strait up and down building. The tapering of the building at the top and bottom (with the middle being slightly wider) is quite elegant. I also think the fact that the curtain wall seems to not extend fully to the ground, and end in a fine grating is rather nice. The crown has a pretty sophisticated look; still not sure if if the south portion has a gap, or thinner glass in the middle. It looks like it could be either from the renderings we've seen. If the crown is illuminated at night, it would be rather dramatic. Finally, what I'm really hoping for, is that they continue to tweak the building. If you go to the Pelli website and look at the detail of the curtain wall of Transbay tower, there is some very nice detail. I'm hoping that the "texturing" they spoke at the meeting of will be something like what their planing for Transbay tower. I think these buildings are quite a ways from being finalized......

Is that enough Chief? Please don't take offense if I don't respond to additional questions.

[Chief Blackhawk]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

They are great looking buildings. I don't understand how you can find any of those structures unappealing. Maybe you don't like it, but that is your opinion. The design of these buildings could be better, but I would still rate it an solid 8/10. You can't look at these buildings and honestly say they are ugly, or say they are boring. Is it a bit uninspired, sure, but they are still some nice looking buildings.

The building adjacent to the Merchandise Mart is bloated like Oprah during her swings, and not only obstructs... it overwhelms the Mart; the central tower is halfway appealing, purely in terms of simple aesthetics, but does NOTHING to complement the site nor the riverfront; and the apartments do not conform to the designs of the former buildings.
This is all in addition to all three structures being straight DERIVATIVE. That is unacceptable in the city that was the catalyst for the skyscraper and modern architecture, let alone the creme dela creme of sites in da Chi. Don't let your blind resolve for structural height swindle the common sense for the site to be represented by nothing but the avant garde and quality that Wolf Point DESERVES.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by spyguy

The website is up: http://wolfpointchicago.com/

I hope that people sign up and register their opinion.

We need to lobby for a better design.

[jarta]

The River bank at Wolf Point eroded because the Kennedy Interests were too cheap to spend the money to stabilize it. It can still be stabilized, but the development team wants to bulkhead the River bank so that the buildings can be extended to the very edges of the property.

That violates the Riverwalk design guidelines and standards in 2 ways. 1. The purpose of the Riverwalk is to return the edges of the River to their natural state. New bulkheading is not permitted, stabilization of what nature's there is required. 2. The setback requirement is 30' from the top of the River bank. The top of the River bank is defined as where the slope becomes less than 10 degrees of slope. Ancillary uses, but not buildings, can extend into or above the setback. The current plan takes the buildings over the River bank all the way to the edge of the River. Our Friends of the Chicago River has yet to be heard from about this plan to bulkhead and extend the buildings to the very edges of the lot.

I'm glad you found image RN-1. It is the image that shows any portion of Wolf Point south of the center of the River, as extended, as "naturalized open space" and the Wolf Point area north of that as the development "opportunity zone". That's what the Plan Commission approved in 2009 and the Plan Commission is the entity which must approve of the amendment the development team is seeking.

However, the opportunity zone is more than enough to construct the self-limited 2 multi-use towers which can be virtually as high as the developer could desire them to be. Right spot; just the wrong plan for Wolf Point, IMO. We'll just have to see what actually develops. This is Chicago! After all. lol!

[BraveNewWorld]

Any chance that STR or someone else could make some pics to show what this will look like in the skyline ?

[BraveNewWorld]

Here is my attempt at this

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

They are great looking buildings. I don't understand how you can find any of those structures unappealing. Maybe you don't like it, but that is your opinion. The design of these buildings could be better, but I would still rate it an solid 8/10. You can't look at these buildings and honestly say they are ugly, or say they are boring. Is it a bit uninspired, sure, but they are still some nice looking buildings.

You just said it yourself. "Uninspired" is simply a nice way of saying boring, lazy, generic, ill conceived, amateur...

[headcase]

Originally Posted by jarta

I'm glad you found image RN-1. It is the image that shows any portion of Wolf Point south of the center of the River, as extended, as "naturalized open space" and the Wolf Point area north of that as the development "opportunity zone". That's what the Plan Commission approved in 2009 and the Plan Commission is the entity which must approve of the amendment the development team is seeking.

You realize that the entire CCAP are recommendations and suggested guidelines, right? It carries no weight, and the overall controlling law is the zoning regulations. Also that the Planning Commission that passed those guidelines has largely been replaced, and is probably more developer friendly than previously.

SSDD

[rgolch]

Didn't see this article linked yet:

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...lf-point-plans

[headcase]

Originally Posted by jarta

That violates the Riverwalk design guidelines and standards in 2 ways. 1. The purpose of the Riverwalk is to return the edges of the River to their natural state. New bulkheading is not permitted, stabilization of what nature's there is required. 2. The setback requirement is 30' from the top of the River bank. The top of the River bank is defined as where the slope becomes less than 10 degrees of slope. Ancillary uses, but not buildings, can extend into or above the setback. The current plan takes the buildings over the River bank all the way to the edge of the River. Our Friends of the Chicago River has yet to be heard from about this plan to bulkhead and extend the buildings to the very edges of the lot

!) Again, can you again provide sources? While the first bolded section maybe true in the neighborhoods, in the downtown area, and in connecting with the existing riverwalk, I highly doubt "returning the edges of the river to their natural state" was ever in the plan...... especially with all of the money that has been sunk into the main branch riverwalk in the last couple of years.

2) Guess my next question....The Zoning code calls for any building within 100 feet of a waterway to go through a PD process, and the code has many provisions where FAR bonuses can be provided for improving the Riverwalk. But I can't seem to locate the sections that you are referring to. Care to point them out?

Again, finding the '09 framework that SOM came up with is easy, LINK, but it's guildlines don't seem to include what you are talking about.

Just curious.

SSDD

[Zapatan]

Why is everyone so obsessed with these buildings being an absolute masterpiece? They don't look any better or worse than most buildings in Chicago, not every building is going to be a dead sexy 10. A near supertall and two other skyscrapers are being built in Chicago, in a crappy economy, we are lucky.

Granted they may be a few years in the future, but surely some other proposals, maybe taller ones will surface between now and then.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Why is everyone so obsessed with these buildings being an absolute masterpiece? They don't look any better or worse than most buildings in Chicago, not every building is going to be a dead sexy 10. A near supertall and two other skyscrapers are being built in Chicago, in a crappy economy, we are lucky.

Granted they may be a few years in the future, but surely some other proposals, maybe taller ones will surface between now and then.

I think you can find your answer if you read the last 15 pages or so.

[george]

The towers of Wolf Point need to embody spirit and make a statement. The current concepts are a bit passionless and stolid and no more than at their crowns. I want to see something more like this...

[jarta]

Originally Posted by headcase

!) Again, can you again provide sources? While the first bolded section maybe true in the neighborhoods, in the downtown area, and in connecting with the existing riverwalk, I highly doubt "returning the edges of the river to their natural state" was ever in the plan...... especially with all of the money that has been sunk into the main branch riverwalk in the last couple of years.

2) Guess my next question....The Zoning code calls for any building within 100 feet of a waterway to go through a PD process, and the code has many provisions where FAR bonuses can be provided for improving the Riverwalk. But I can't seem to locate the sections that you are referring to. Care to point them out?

Again, finding the '09 framework that SOM came up with is easy, LINK, but it's guildlines don't seem to include what you are talking about.

Just curious.

SSDD

headcase, The SOM Framework Plan was also a 2009 report done by SOM. The 2009 Action Plan was adopted by the Plan Commission and has the force of law. The 2009 SOM Framework Plan has never been adopted by the Plan Commission. It has no legal standing in zoning proceedings - it is not official City policy.

FAR bonuses can be granted for developer concessions under a PD. However, an increased FAR results in a taller structure. An increased FAR does not allow massing not otherwise allowed or provide an exception from the River Corridor setback or river bank requirements. As I said, there is plenty of space in the Wolf Point development "opportunity zone" for 1 or 2 super tall buildings - and also providing the "naturalized open space" in the 2009 Action Plan.

As for a source of River bank policy, the Prologue immediately before section 1.1 of the River Corridor Guidelines and Standards contains five bulletpointed goals. The third bulletpointed goal is:

"Restore and protect landscaping and natural habitats along the river ..."

Section 1.9 provides:

"The riverbank zone should not be developed or disturbed except for environmental restoration, landscaping, and nature trails, so that it can act as a buffer between the river and adjacent uses and enhance the natural aspects of the continuous greenway corridor."

All guidelines apply to all reaches of the river - except more stringent ones are provided for the Bubbly Creek industrial area. There is no exemption for Downtown.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by george

The towers of Wolf Point need to embody spirit and make a statement. The current concepts are a bit passionless and stolid and no more than at their crowns. I want to see something more like this...

It's important to bear in mind that the renderings for the south and east towers are still works in progress. What appears to be a featureless crown on top of the south tower will ultimately be more much detailed and refined, potentially consisting of, as Fred Clarke of Pelli Clarke Pelli indicated, an interwoven mixture of glass, steel, and other materials. Give it a chance to evolve.

[tawfiqmp]

You guys don't need to argue over pointless things like this like they do over at SSC. They argue way too much over there.

[jarta]

headcase, You did not ask, but Section 2.4 of the River Corridor Guidelines and Standards is entitled "Improvements or Structures Not Permitted in Setback Area."

The prohibited items are:

". Buildings or structures of any kind (except river dependent use structures)

. Vehicular use areas (parking lots, driveways, service drives, loading docks, vehicular staging or storage areas, etc.)

. Overhead utilities

. Private yards, patios, terraces or decks"

Section 2.3 permits

. Projections from buildings in the private development zone ... provided the projection does not extend three (3) feet or more into the setback area and ..."

It sure looks to me like the balconies, etc. of the first tower (residential) extend all the way to the River edge. The setback is 30' and they're not allowed to extend more than 3'. 27' too close - and after the natural River bank area is removed?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by jarta

headcase, You did not ask, but Section 2.4 of the River Corridor Guidelines and Standards is entitled "Improvements or Structures Not Permitted in Setback Area."

The prohibited items are:

". Buildings or structures of any kind (except river dependent use structures)

. Vehicular use areas (parking lots, driveways, service drives, loading docks, vehicular staging or storage areas, etc.)

. Overhead utilities

. Private yards, patios, terraces or decks"

Section 2.3 permits

. Projections from buildings in the private development zone ... provided the projection does not extend three (3) feet or more into the setback area and ..."

It sure looks to me like the balconies, etc. of the first tower (residential) extend all the way to the River edge. The setback is 30' and they're not allowed to extend more than 3'. 27' too close - and after the natural River bank area is removed?

OK I finally said it, Mr or Mrs, or Miss,...

Your location is blank.

Please explain where you live... Your answer will help alot...

Thanks in advance.

bnk