HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2016, 10:23 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
I'll never understand who would want to live downtown or in a massive apartment building like this, but man, this building is really nice!
Right? There's really no good way to yell "get afff my laawn" from a high-rise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2016, 11:06 PM
patrick84's Avatar
patrick84 patrick84 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 214
Thank your alderman...

From the most recent 42nd Ward newletter:

"The upcoming phase 2 will include a 660' tall building with 700 residential apartment units, amenity retail space and accessory parking at 313 W Wolf Point Plaza."

Further:

"As mentioned above, Phase 2 will have less height, less site coverage and less density than what is allowable under PD 98 and previously approved. The allowed uses have not changed and the development will not deviate from the allowable onsite parking limits, which the Alderman insisted should be some of the lowest in all of downtown Chicago based upon proximity to public transportation and the walkable nature of River North. The following design modifications were negotiated based upon residential concerns raised at the time of initial project approval."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2016, 11:10 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
"The Alderman asked the developers to reconsider the height, density and site coverage based upon ever-increasing traffic in River North and the fact that the Wolf Point site is landlocked."

Sit and spin budday.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 3:18 AM
Mikemak27's Avatar
Mikemak27 Mikemak27 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 245
New details released via Alderman Reily are explained and shown in a post from the Chicago architecture blog. Wolf Point South appears to be 950 feet still, so no supertall

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...f-point-south/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 3:25 AM
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 264
At least we have 4 years to lobby for a height increase...

As long as the finished product is optimal I can't complain, but I highly doubt a marginal increase in height or volume would suddenly flood the streets with traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 3:28 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikemak27 View Post
New details released via Alderman Reily are explained and shown in a post from the Chicago architecture blog. Wolf Point South appears to be 950 feet still, so no supertall

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...f-point-south/
Not necessarily. Depends on what height we are talking about. Sometimes the measured 'height' of the building is the top floor sometimes it's the roof and sometimes it's the top of a parapet or antennae. The diagram especially on the south tower doesn't offer much detail. It's still quite possible that the top of a parapet extends up to supertall range.

Also... BTW Chicago Architecture blog on behalf of the forum. You're Welcome! ... for all of the material you get from this forum. Let us know if you want some of our stale Cheetos.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 5:15 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
At least we have 4 years to lobby for a height increase...
Lol you guys and your obsession with a building's height. 600 feet, 700 feet... it's all the same: VERY TALL.

A building's height is such an arbitrary thing to obsess over. I've never understood why people on this site put such little emphasis on a building's design and maximum emphasis on a building's height. So strange.

I remember when I was a kid, being seriously bummed out when the Petronas Towers stole our title of WTB. Ever since then, I've cared very little about a building's height. Unless we soon build something taller than 3,000 feet, I'll continue not caring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 5:27 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Lol you guys and your obsession with a building's height. 600 feet, 700 feet... it's all the same: VERY TALL.

A building's height is such an arbitrary thing to obsess over. I've never understood why people on this site put such little emphasis on a building's design and maximum emphasis on a building's height. So strange.

I remember when I was a kid, being seriously bummed out when the Petronas Towers stole our title of WTB. Ever since then, I've cared very little about a building's height. Unless we soon build something taller than 3,000 feet, I'll continue not caring.
No, it's not all the same.

Some locations need the vertical reach to make a grand visual impact.

If this was a mid-block project perhaps, but is at the confluence of the branches of the river and is visually important.

People here don't put such little emphasis on design. Where the hell have you been?

Feel free not to care about height, but from many of your responses, you're not necessarily visually observant when it comes to location impact.

With this being at the spot where Franklin/Orleans jog, a better vertical exclamation is warranted.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 5:29 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
No, it's not all the same.

Some locations need the vertical reach to make a grand visual impact.

If this was a mid-block project perhaps, but is at the confluence of the branches of the river and is visually important.

People here don't put such little emphasis on design. Where the hell have you been?

Feel free not to care about height, but from many of your responses, you're not necessarily visually observant when it comes to location impact.

With this being at the spot where Franklin/Orleans jog, a better vertical exclamation is warranted.
679 feet won't make a visual impact? Um...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 5:55 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
679 feet won't make a visual impact? Um...
Not like 750' would, no! I look and talk about this stuff all day, every day; I know what I'm talking about.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 6:30 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Btw, what do you do during the winter?

And has anyone ever thought to run a glass-ceilinged tour boat all months that the river isn't iced over?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 7:25 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Btw, what do you do during the winter?

And has anyone ever thought to run a glass-ceilinged tour boat all months that the river isn't iced over?
School... Travel... Rest...
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 1:47 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
"The Alderman asked the developers to reconsider the height, density and site coverage based upon ever-increasing traffic in River North and the fact that the Wolf Point site is landlocked."

Sit and spin budday.
Does he know what landlocked means?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 2:06 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
If there was a height reduction I doubt it was just at the bequest of the Alderman. The developers probably realized that condo sales aren't coming back anytime soon with Millenials all making half a mortgage payment a month towards student loans. They also probably realize that it's maybe not the most prudent thing in the world to break ground on a 750' tall apartment tower with max density given the current frothiness of the market. They are entitled to that density, so I doubt they are planning on just throwing it out, hopefully it shows up in the form of a maxed out WPS tower in the early part of next cycle.

This is probably just a case of a developer saying "hey, we don't really want a building that big right now, why don't you take credit it for it?" It's not as if they actually lose entitlements by not using them all now, they can cram extra SF into the big boy on the South parcel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 2:37 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 797


Missed this post, have to say this is an improvement! Not stellar or signature but at least solid. I actually perfer the first design for the south tower and the second design for the east tower.

Last edited by UPChicago; Oct 5, 2016 at 3:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 3:01 PM
The Best Forumer's Avatar
The Best Forumer The Best Forumer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,774
Kinda reminds me of Rockefeller in NYC.
__________________
The suburbs are second-rate. Cookie-cutter houses, treeless yards, mediocre schools, and more crime than you think. Do your family a favor and move closer to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 4:03 PM
Pilton Pilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
If there was a height reduction I doubt it was just at the bequest of the Alderman. The developers probably realized that condo sales aren't coming back anytime soon with Millenials all making half a mortgage payment a month towards student loans. They also probably realize that it's maybe not the most prudent thing in the world to break ground on a 750' tall apartment tower with max density given the current frothiness of the market. They are entitled to that density, so I doubt they are planning on just throwing it out, hopefully it shows up in the form of a maxed out WPS tower in the early part of next cycle.

This is probably just a case of a developer saying "hey, we don't really want a building that big right now, why don't you take credit it for it?" It's not as if they actually lose entitlements by not using them all now, they can cram extra SF into the big boy on the South parcel.
Spin. WPE will complement WPW very well. WPE will be another lovely building at the Confluence. And, the density lost by down-sizing WPE can be tacked on WPS when/if it is ever built.

But, the Alderman seems to have realized that access to the WP peninsula is limited and the total density granted for the project might be too much for 3 buildings plus nearly 1,500 parking spaces.

Better to allow WPW and WPE to be built out, determine how serious the traffic problem is and then determine how much more density can safely be added to the peninsula. If WPS doesn't overburden the property, it could still be a supertall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 4:43 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilton View Post
Spin. WPE will complement WPW very well. WPE will be another lovely building at the Confluence. And, the density lost by down-sizing WPE can be tacked on WPS when/if it is ever built.

But, the Alderman seems to have realized that access to the WP peninsula is limited and the total density granted for the project might be too much for 3 buildings plus nearly 1,500 parking spaces.

Better to allow WPW and WPE to be built out, determine how serious the traffic problem is and then determine how much more density can safely be added to the peninsula. If WPS doesn't overburden the property, it could still be a supertall.
There's literally one way in and out of Wolf Point so yes there will be traffic.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #339  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 5:08 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJXN View Post
There's literally one way in and out of Wolf Point so yes there will be traffic.
Technically there are 2 ways if you include Lower N Orleans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #340  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 5:23 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
Technically there are 2 ways if you include Lower N Orleans.
And more if you have, you know, feet.

Traffic in the loop and river north sucks at rush and has for a looong time now. The idea that Reily just suddenly realized this is laughable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.