A quick overlay... not 100% accurate, but it gets it close enough.

http://i.imgur.com/4IZFKkG.jpg

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.

South tower kind of reminds me of the new Comcast Center

http://photos.visitphilly.com/new-co...kyline-830.jpg

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. ;)

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.:shrug:

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.

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.

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.

Wow......

That's unreal...

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.

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.

^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)

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.......

I love the revisions. How is it that developers are able to make such drastic changes just like that, on a project so massive?

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.

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:shrug:? That's not going to change.

Welcome to a downtown metropolis:tup:

better. pretty building really

I may be in the minority but it looked better before.......

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"