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

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by bnk

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

You mean of people being ungreatful and overcritical?

The facade will likely look beautiful and we got three cool new looking skyscrapers in downtown Chicago.

I just wish they were taller, they should just have 2 towers and more park space.

[ChiPhi]

^^^
There is nothing "ungrateful" about being critical. And I don't think this needs more park space. People want tall, landmark towers because this site is an historic location that is at the confluence of the rivers in an extremely noticeable location. I don't think the towers are half bad (especially compared to a lot of the stuff we've seen lately), but people are free to criticize. Considering the cost of a firm like PCP, I wish Kennedy / Hines would have gone with a less expensive (but imo more talented) firm like KPF or SOM or a better Starchitect who would have really pushed the limits like Steven Holl or BIG or OMA or the like. But I'm not one to complain, especially when this could add so much to the Wacker canyon.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

^^^
There is nothing "ungrateful" about being critical. And I don't think this needs more park space. People want tall, landmark towers because this site is an historic location that is at the confluence of the rivers in an extremely noticeable location. I don't think the towers are half bad (especially compared to a lot of the stuff we've seen lately), but people are free to criticize. Considering the cost of a firm like PCP, I wish Kennedy / Hines would have gone with a less expensive (but imo more talented) firm like KPF or SOM or a better Starchitect who would have really pushed the limits like Steven Holl or BIG or OMA or the like. But I'm not one to complain, especially when this could add so much to the Wacker canyon.

I agree, people are free to criticize, but it's not like this is a terrible monstrosity. It could be so much worse.

But yea I wouldn't blame someone for wanting these taller and better looking, but since this project will take time, maybe it will change for the better. I don't know what the maximum height allowed at the site would be though.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

You mean of people being ungreatful and overcritical?

The facade will likely look beautiful and we got three cool new looking skyscrapers in downtown Chicago.

I just wish they were taller, they should just have 2 towers and more park space.

Totally agree. I wish this was a 400 meter building too, but a 290 meter + tower is great during such a bad recession. Keep in mind that it is only 50 meters short of the JHC

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by 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!

The Point has changed significantly over the past 150 years, way before the Kennedy's owned it. It was cut back many years ago for navigable reasons. Yes, it's eroding and maybe it should have been stabilized before, but because of the development, it's better to bulkhead it as you don't want river water to penetrate into the lower levels. All the buildings downtown along the river are like this. It would also allow for easier boat docking if they were to have a water taxi facility.

It doesn't violate any guidelines. If it were to remain an open space, the fine, a natural embankment may work, but even in Ping Tom Park, there are bulkheads.

[Mister Uptempo]

Just some piddling musings on my part...

While looking at the presentation material available at the Wolf Point website, I stumbled upon this image-


This might help explain why the developers can't push the South tower any further back. In addition to the sight corridor guarantees for the Apparel Center, it looks as if there is also a minimum setback from the main entrance of the Apparel Center, as well.

As "jarta" explained, the West and South towers need to be oriented north-south. The East tower appears to be just outside the easement zone, and that, along with the unorthodox shape of that section of the Point, lends to its odd shape.



Combine the need for a cul-du-sac (since neither the East nor South tower can orient its main entrance along Wolf Point Plaza Drive), plus two separate entry/exit points for underground parking (one for the West residential tower and one for the South & East towers), as well as the sight corridor and setback restrictions, and the building placements seem to make a little more sense.

Also, just wondering, has anyone with the know-how had the opportunity to look at the traffic study posted at the Wolf Point website? Do the figures they advance seem realistic to you? I wouldn't have a clue myself.

[jarta]

Mr. Uptempo, Thanks for the visual of the "Site Constraints."

That visual clearly shows the setback (Riverwalk) area. However it gratuitously adds something not in the River Corridor Guidelines and Standards - "at grade."

While the visual shows the self-limiting view easement of the 1998 document recorded against the PD property, it does not mention the other self-limitation - the Wolf Point development "shall consist of a one or two-tower multi-use facility" plus any parking spaces necessary for the existing (Holiday Inn/Sun-Times) structure.

If both self-limitations were imposed when the existing structure was sold, the price paid for them was "bought and paid for" in the purchase price then paid to the Kennedy Interests. Why is one self-limitation in the 1998 recorded document effective and the other one not?

A final thought, the site has 167,730 sq. ft. and only 66,000 sq. ft. of the site can be used above 100' up from the plaza. The gray portions on the "Site Constraints" visual of the 3 towers show (as extended out to the water) certainly more than at the 22% base touching the ground at plaza level and could exceed the usable 66,000 sq. ft.

[george]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

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.

Agreed, the concept renderings are just place holders for now. The revised sketch is my two cents wish list. Wolf Point is a premier Chicago site and I'd like to think the final designs aspire to something comparable to London Bridge Tower - "The Shard".

Here's a couple brought over from the Historic Chicago thread. Wolf point has undoubtedly been reshaped by man & nature over the years:


Wolf Point 1870


Wolf Point 1875

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...801404.gallery

[ChiPhi]

Uptempo (or anyone), is there anything restricting the west tower from being rotated ~45 degrees (or extending the southernmost wall to meet the river) so that the tower greets the river less incommodiously. Also, why can the other two towers not use Mart Center Dr / Wolf Point plaza Dr?

[Mister Uptempo]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say that there was some sort of regulation preventing the East and South towers from having their entrances on Wolf Point Plaza Drive. Just that due to the setback pushing the South tower away from the drive, and the East tower being positioned on an east-west orientation, that neither tower entrance would be on the drive, making the cul-du-sac necessary.

The cul-du-sac itself is on the same level as the drive, with the ramp leading to and from the underground garage nestled between.

[Busy Bee]

Anyone else think that this site layout of 3 towers lends itself well to having skybridges between them? There is precedence, for obvious reasons, with Petronas (would like to see the height that goes with them) or something akin to Steven Holl's Linked Hybrid in Beijing...

Just a thought. I suppose function over form would come into importance here, with there being no obvious need for a bridge(s) other than some common amenity floor shared between the three structures, which I suppose is unlikely due to their separation of uses... regardless it would look cool.

[BraveNewWorld]

Did someone say skybridges ?

[Chicago_Forever]

Great work! These actually look good and better than what's proposed.

[Standpoor]

^^^^^
If the one or two tower limitation is for the Apparel Mart easement, then it appears from those drawings that the easement is only limited to 393'8" which only covers the west and center towers. If that is true then the east tower is not included and the two towers meet the 1998 limitation, which I have not read but that could explain it.

Second, I just read the draft traffic study, and just realized that the site will have 1285 parking spaces or am I reading that wrong. I was assuming 800 so the extra was kind of shocking.

[Dan in Chicago]

A preview of what we're getting:



Marina Bay in Singapore

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

A preview of what we're getting:



Marina Bay in Singapore

What are you trying to say ?

[i_am_hydrogen]

Wolf Point proposal promising, but it has a way to go

By Blair Kamin
June 3, 2012

Cities rarely get opportunities for architectural greatness like the one Chicago now has at Wolf Point. This historic plot at the meeting of theChicago River'sbranches — once home to pioneer taverns and trading posts, in recent decades an eyesore surface parking lot — is as prominent as they come. It deserves the finest architecture and public spaces. Nothing less will do...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,0,17155.story

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Wolf Point proposal promising, but it has a way to go

By Blair Kamin
June 3, 2012

Cities rarely get opportunities for architectural greatness like the one Chicago now has at Wolf Point. This historic plot at the meeting of theChicago River'sbranches — once home to pioneer taverns and trading posts, in recent decades an eyesore surface parking lot — is as prominent as they come. It deserves the finest architecture and public spaces. Nothing less will do...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,0,17155.story

Great read!

[ardecila]

Good... Kamin is the most prominent voice we could hope for if we want some revisions.

The NIMBYs should be demanding a parking reduction. Sure, it'll increase demand for street parking, but it will also alleviate traffic and shift most Wolf Point workers/residents to transit service.

In terms of traffic mitigation: Mart Drive needs to be redesigned. Period. As a one-way street it's utterly incapable of handling traffic from Wolf Point/Apparel Center to Wells and points south, which forces said traffic onto a five-block detour. It also has woefully inadequate pedestrian facilities, which sucks because it's the primary route between Wolf Point and the Brown Line. Dump the surface parking and make it a two-way street with parallel parking and a wide riverfront sidewalk.

Hines and the Kennedys should also extend their riverwalk up to Kinzie to provide a cycling route into the site. This is as simple as removing some fencing and installing a new curb cut. I still think there needs to be a pedestrian bridge over to River Point's plaza, but I don't know if it's fair to make Hines pay for it. At the very least, the developments should anticipate places for the bridge foundations.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

wolf point proposal promising, but it has a way to go

by blair kamin
june 3, 2012

cities rarely get opportunities for architectural greatness like the one chicago now has at wolf point. This historic plot at the meeting of thechicago river'sbranches — once home to pioneer taverns and trading posts, in recent decades an eyesore surface parking lot — is as prominent as they come. It deserves the finest architecture and public spaces. Nothing less will do...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,0,17155.story

amen!!!