HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2016, 11:08 PM
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine View Post
I'm glad this information finally broke. It was like torture wanting to spill the beans when everyone was complaining about how the towers might not go up and then with the soil testing speculation.
In the future, could you please not hold this kind of juicy secret hostage? The entire purpose of this website is to anonymously share development information amongst each other! Draw it on a napkin for all we care!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2016, 11:51 PM
chris11 chris11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 73
Great news though I always wanted the South Tower to be built first as originally planned because if the East Tower (phase 3) happened to get cancelled then a park or river plaza at that east end of lot would look fine, but if the South Tower gets axed thats a terrible gap in the middle of that prestigious lot. Not that they wouldn't get it developed eventually...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2016, 6:04 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
When it's a condo building, you really can't flip it for a profit like a rental.
No, you make your profit selling every single unit, one at a time.

I don't think they're doing this looking to make a crazy profit by flipping the building. The downtown rental market is getting very saturated with new construction and rent growth will slow down or even reverse. That doesn't do much for your valuation.

The only reason they're doing rental is so that they don't create a whole new nest of NIMBYs before the South Tower is approved. After that, look for them to do a condo conversion on East Tower and/or West Tower.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2016, 3:44 PM
Pilton Pilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 281
^ Agreed. Building more rental to convert later.

I hope that WPE turns out to be as pretty as WPW.

Building WPE before building WPS will probably create construction problems for WPS. Nothing insurmountable. But accessfor construction and space to store building materials might be tight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2016, 4:40 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilton View Post
^ Agreed. Building more rental to convert later.

I hope that WPE turns out to be as pretty as WPW.

Building WPE before building WPS will probably create construction problems for WPS. Nothing insurmountable. But accessfor construction and space to store building materials might be tight.
As someone with little knowledge on the construction process, can you explain why building the east building first will lead to problems for the south tower?
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:11 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,121
So, a little birdie told me this evening that the developers/architects are looking to go taller and thinner for the east tower

I don't have any specific height, but like I've mentioned before, there will more than likely be another community meeting and they'll have to go back before the plan commission.

Seeing as they're looking at residential, they don't need the bulky floor plates depicted in previous placeholder iterations.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:30 AM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
So, a little birdie told me this evening that the developers/architects are looking to go taller and thinner for the east tower

I don't have any specific height, but like I've mentioned before, there will more than likely be another community meeting and they'll have to go back before the plan commission.

Seeing as they're looking at residential, they don't need the bulky floor plates depicted in previous placeholder iterations.
So we are looking at something in the 800 foot range? Also how would this effect the south tower? Thanks for the news Victor.
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:40 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchymunch View Post
So we are looking at something in the 800 foot range? Also how would this effect the south tower? Thanks for the news Victor.
As mentioned, I have no idea of the 'new' height. The bulk/square footage might me the same as before, just thinned and stretched.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 5:21 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 27,484
^ intriguing. Thinner & taller sounds good to me.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 5:25 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,179
Going thinner and taller obviously could also be a benefit in for units in the eventual South Tower that face east. The original East Tower did look a little hefty. Sounds like a win-win all around. Hopefully we can maybe get this baby up to between 850-900 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 10:35 AM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,346
In an ideal world, I imagine Wolf Point East will be around 925 feet tall, and Wolf Point South will be around 1,100 feet tall. Which would suit anyone just fine.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 1:34 PM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 694
No!!! Goddamn it NO!!! Stop the speculation at once! Not even 12 hours has passed and already three people are throwing numbers around. Bvic's post clearly stated that no height figure was yet available.

I renew my call for a speculation thread to be opened so the mods can throw all speculative posts into a circle jerk of supertall fanboys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 1:39 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 27,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lurker View Post
No!!! Goddamn it NO!!! Stop the speculation at once! Not even 12 hours has passed and already three people are throwing numbers around. Bvic's post clearly stated that no height figure was yet available.

I renew my call for a speculation thread to be opened so the mods can throw all speculative posts into a circle jerk of supertall fanboys.
calm down.

if people want to speculate about what "taller & thinner" might mean for the east tower, then that's perfectly acceptable discussion for this thread.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:02 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lurker View Post
No!!! Goddamn it NO!!! Stop the speculation at once! Not even 12 hours has passed and already three people are throwing numbers around. Bvic's post clearly stated that no height figure was yet available.

I renew my call for a speculation thread to be opened so the mods can throw all speculative posts into a circle jerk of supertall fanboys.
maybe you should continue to lurk..... geez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:19 PM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 694
Ok point taken. But its also possible that the developers intend to build taller and thinner than the west tower and not necessarily taller than the current place holder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:22 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 877
^huh, lurker... interesting speculation...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:37 PM
go go white sox go go white sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lurker View Post
Ok point taken. But its also possible that the developers intend to build taller and thinner than the west tower and not necessarily taller than the current place holder.
I doubt that because the East tower was always intended to be taller then the west tower so they have to be talking about the current East tower as proposed. Furthermore, when they said thinner again this must be in reference to the massive East tower. I mean otherwise it wouldn't make sense how much more thinner can you get than the west tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 4:37 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lurker View Post
No!!! Goddamn it NO!!! Stop the speculation at once! Not even 12 hours has passed and already three people are throwing numbers around. Bvic's post clearly stated that no height figure was yet available.

I renew my call for a speculation thread to be opened so the mods can throw all speculative posts into a circle jerk of supertall fanboys.
I was waiting for this to become a sarcastic comment and it never came. I hope the buildings both end up being over 20 miles tall
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 7:57 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,121
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...06-column.html

Apartment tower is a promising start for Wolf Point development

Blair Kamin
Contact Reporter
Cityscapes

Quote:
Compared to sexy skyscrapers for the ultrarich and major corporations, rental apartment towers rarely rate a second look. Budgets and aesthetic aspirations tend to be low. The outcome profits developers but does little to enrich the urban prospect.

So when the news broke four years ago that an apartment high-rise would be built at one of the most prominent sites on the Chicago River — Wolf Point, the triangular downtown plot where the river's north, south and main branches converge — there was reason for concern. The developers were proposing a slender, glass-sheathed tower that promised to be several cuts above the hulking concrete high-rises that blight River North, but I, for one, wondered whether the result would match the level of quality suggested by the renderings.

The answer, for the most part, is yes.

The new Wolf Point West, a 485-foot high-rise designed by Chicago's bKL Architecture, marks a solid beginning for the trio of skyscrapers planned for this high-profile, historic site. The new tower has no eye-grabbing forms, like the swooping curves of River Point, an office building under construction on the river's west bank. But what it lacks in architectural pyrotechnics it makes up for in sound site planning and skillful design.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted May 11, 2016, 3:03 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post
Lower Orelans to Kinzie is how I would envision residents getting their cars in and out.
That might end up being a monumental cluster**** seeing how the intersection of Kinzie and Lower Orleans is already a congestion point even with very little traffic crossing N/S. If the City had shown some foresight, there would be a bridge extending the Mart Drive (or whatever it's called) west to Halsted over the Metra tracks before there were a bunch of condos along that route that would scream bloody murder if such a thing were proposed today. I also think that a long-term plan would have included extending the upper/lower portion of Canal all the way north to Kinzie, but the ship for that sailed at least 30 years ago I think (and probably more like 45 years ago).
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 6:43 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.