CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS - Page 157

J_M_Tungsten · #**3121** Posted **Jun 29, 2016, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

6/28

Amazing shot george! This looks like a model of a building.

Steely Dan · #**3122** Posted **Jun 29, 2016, 5:23 PM**

^ it really is a stupendous shot.

and the subject matter ain't too shabby either.

nice work!

harryc · #**3123** Posted **Jun 29, 2016, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

6/28

^^

Great lighting.

george · #**3124** Posted **Jun 29, 2016, 5:44 PM**

It's that late June 8am lighting...

UTEPman · #**3125** Posted **Jun 30, 2016, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

We absolutely do not need to look more like Shanghai at night or in any other capacity. Chicago is about class not crass...

Chicago indeed doesn't need to mimic Shanghai, but tasteful lighting can really make or break a skyline at night. Otherwise, the skyline looks dull and lifeless, which is why I think Chi-town is lacking when it comes to night time skyline photos.

I remember boating around downtown Manhattan at night, and I couldn't get any good photos since everything was so dark. All the buildings sort of blended together. It really took away from what could be a very awe-inspiring cluster of buildings..

ardecila · #**3126** Posted **Jul 1, 2016, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UTEPman

Chicago indeed doesn't need to mimic Shanghai, but tasteful lighting can really make or break a skyline at night. Otherwise, the skyline looks dull and lifeless, which is why I think Chi-town is lacking when it comes to night time skyline photos.

I remember boating around downtown Manhattan at night, and I couldn't get any good photos since everything was so dark. All the buildings sort of blended together. It really took away from what could be a very awe-inspiring cluster of buildings..

Is there official or unofficial city policy against this kind of lighting in Chicago? Or is it just an extravagance that developers don't want to pay for? Usually this kind of stuff is ego-driven.

harryc · #**3127** Posted **Jul 2, 2016, 12:24 AM**

June 21

June 22

June 23

June 28

BrinChi · #**3128** Posted **Jul 2, 2016, 3:49 PM**

[QUOTE=harryc;7491981]
June 28

^^^
Not digging that arch in the middle. That's an unfortunate additional an otherwise stunning building.

Chupper · #**3129** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 6:14 PM**

Some type of accident with the elevator today? It looks like work has stopped and Canal Street is closed.

More detail on 2nd image.

J_M_Tungsten · #**3130** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 7:06 PM**

Counter weight derailed?

BVictor1 · #**3131** Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 1:46 PM**

07/07/16

LouisVanDerWright · #**3132** Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 2:28 PM**

^^^ Exactly as advertised, nice.

Illuminator · #**3133** Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 2:37 PM**

This building is turning out to be a stunner. The reflection of the skyline on the curved glass and the river in the tilted glass cause me to zone out while walking down Wacker.

Anyone know how or if the Lake Street streetscape will look when this is complete?

The way they built the park to be elevated above 10 ft is very unwelcoming. It would be nice if the retaining walls along lake had an opening to allow walkers to go from 150 NRP to 444WL.

I'm sure it has been said before, but this building reminds me of the old packaging for the McDonald's hot apple pies. ...and the tilted glass along the river looks like the reed of a woodwind instrument.

colemonkee · #**3134** Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 4:25 PM**

^You're dead on with the McDonald's apple pie packaging comparison. I've thought that from day 1, and I'm pretty sure it's been brought up before. Still, it's the best looking apple pie packaging I've seen yet!

HomrQT · #**3135** Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 7:43 PM**

BVictor, I thought that was a rendering at first. Good shot.

UTEPman · #**3136** Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is there official or unofficial city policy against this kind of lighting in Chicago? Or is it just an extravagance that developers don't want to pay for? Usually this kind of stuff is ego-driven.

Good question. I doubt lighting would be an expense a major developer can't afford. I think developers tend to mimic their surroundings in a lot of ways, and lighting just isn't a part of the culture of Chicago development.

If you look at other American cities, for example, you'll see that lighting on new buildings is prevalent when the older established buildings have it as well (Philly, Charlotte, Miami, etc..).

maru2501 · #**3137** Posted **Jul 11, 2016, 2:58 PM**

this gets a clap out, though. Very nicely done. Good setting for the design. Good for the city as long as you can kind of get at the park space

MultiModal · #**3138** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 1:29 PM**

The people at Hines mentioned that Wolf Point East should break ground in Q1 2017. Personally, after touring River Point and 150 Riverside I would rather be at River Point.

Zerton · #**3139** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 3:35 PM**

I wish the landscaping were a bit better designed.

J_M_Tungsten · #**3140** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 4:08 PM**

^ Thanks for the contribution. Care to elaborate on how?