CHICAGO | Salesforce Tower | 850 FT | 60 FLOORS

[SteelMonkey]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

This is the "Fish Hatchery" section. Set aside to provide food and shelter for fish eggs under the vegetation on the right. The beds on the left are butterfly friendly plants. Joe Pye weed is the tall gray/purple flower, False sunflower is the yellow cluster in the back, lots of Aster which has yet to bloom and Cup plant is just peeking up and will get quite big with yellow blooms. All are butterfly, bee and other pollinator favorites.

Nice info thx

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

Comparing the quality and detailing of our white terra cotta masterpieces to the banal, AutoCAD-designed blue glass facades is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Yes there's beauty in both and impressive structural qualities of the newer towers that serve as talking points on architecture tours, but one is far superior in the minds of tourists, locals, and everyone in between and likely will be for another hundred years. Blue glass towers seem like late-stage capitalism answering the question of "how economic can we make a building," which others in this forum have debated Chicago's stance at the forefront of this area of construction/development whereas NY & other global cities are more about flashiness to draw tenants, residents, and tourists. More than that I view it as a selfish, more greedy shift in development philosophy which focuses on the floor-to-ceiling views that tenants/residents get, not so much that the public gets of the actual building. I'm fine with having economic towers that look sleek, but we're an architecture town. Extreme example but we don't want our new building philosophy to end up like Seoul where it looks like copy & pasted towers then some dramatic supertall(s). One of my favorite things about living here is the variety of architecture and how it often feels like an outdoor museum, but seeing 4-5 of these similar height econo-boxes in one prime location makes me a bit sad for what could've been.

If it cheers you up to think about, Tribune East + 400 N Lakeshore + Site I would make Chicago at the river's mouth absolutely world class IMO.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

Comparing the quality and detailing of our white terra cotta masterpieces to the banal, AutoCAD-designed blue glass facades is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Yes there's beauty in both and impressive structural qualities of the newer towers that serve as talking points on architecture tours, but one is far superior in the minds of tourists, locals, and everyone in between and likely will be for another hundred years. Blue glass towers seem like late-stage capitalism answering the question of "how economic can we make a building," which others in this forum have debated Chicago's stance at the forefront of this area of construction/development whereas NY & other global cities are more about flashiness to draw tenants, residents, and tourists. More than that I view it as a selfish, more greedy shift in development philosophy which focuses on the floor-to-ceiling views that tenants/residents get, not so much that the public gets of the actual building. I'm fine with having economic towers that look sleek, but we're an architecture town. Extreme example but we don't want our new building philosophy to end up like Seoul where it looks like copy & pasted towers then some dramatic supertall(s). One of my favorite things about living here is the variety of architecture and how it often feels like an outdoor museum, but seeing 4-5 of these similar height econo-boxes in one prime location makes me a bit sad for what could've been.

Are you aware of the fact that Terra Cotta was the "cheap alternative to stone driven by cost cutting capitalists" of it's day? Literally Terra Cotta was mass produced fireproofing that was lighter weight and less work than stone and brick.

It's like Victorian architecture. We often label anything victorian as if it's some sort of hand crafted masterpiece without realizing that the entire style was made possible by the advent of mass produced building materials in the UK during the 1800s. The relatively plain and geometric craftsman sytle was actually a rejection of these manufactured and overwrought styles. Simplicity isn't an analogue to cheap...

[iLeunamme]

Took a couple from a boat ride this weekend.

[gandalf612]

Maybe it's because I'm an art student but the glass towers never looked too similar to me. 150 N Riverside has a ginormous cantilever and a distinct purple tint to its glass that clearly sets it apart. Riverpoint has giant parabolas. WPW is different from WPE and WPS and the two latter appear to be getting different shades of glass. Out of all of them, BoA and BMO are the most similar, but they're also 4 blocks apart and BMO isn't even on the river.

[rivernorthlurker]

New perspective from the Chicago Brown line - this should look pretty cool when done.



The glass hasn't been moving on the river side, but progress seems to be continuing on the entrance side.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by gandalf612

Maybe it's because I'm an art student but the glass towers never looked too similar to me. 150 N Riverside has a ginormous cantilever and a distinct purple tint to its glass that clearly sets it apart. Riverpoint has giant parabolas. WPW is different from WPE and WPS and the two latter appear to be getting different shades of glass. Out of all of them, BoA and BMO are the most similar, but they're also 4 blocks apart and BMO isn't even on the river.

Agree here. From a distance that I took the photo yes they all look a similar blue shade but up close I think they are sufficiently distinguished and compliment each other nicely.

Just took this one.

[cityofblindinglights]

Similar angle from Sunday the 18th

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Much as expected, this tower is shaping up to be a an absolute gem and capstone of the Wolf Point development - which as an overall composition is living up to its great promise. No amount of whinging from the height-obsessed fanboys or the anti-blue glass brigade detracts from it. While I don't have a stake in this development, I wish I had.

[southoftheloop]

^Yep. Classy development for a classy city.

[Tombstoner]

I'm not a height fetishist or knee-jerk loather of blue glass, but I have to admit to getting a bit tired of blue glass boxes that aren't making much effort. The quality of glass may be nice, the street/river-level engagement isn't bad, but for a PRIME location in Chicago, it strikes me as a wasted opportunity to make a statement other than "I'm not offensive" or "it could have been worse." In 5 years no one is going to be thinking about this building as an architectural accomplishment.

[dropdeaded209]

in that photo the glass looks a lot closer to the green of 300 N. LaSalle anyway... is it blue or green?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Good point, and you will be able to tell what era it was built in also. We had tan buildings for a few years and blue glass is nice for now. Soon they will start doing more of other colors.

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

Comparing the quality and detailing of our white terra cotta masterpieces to the banal, AutoCAD-designed blue glass facades is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Yes there's beauty in both and impressive structural qualities of the newer towers that serve as talking points on architecture tours, but one is far superior in the minds of tourists, locals, and everyone in between and likely will be for another hundred years. Blue glass towers seem like late-stage capitalism answering the question of "how economic can we make a building," which others in this forum have debated Chicago's stance at the forefront of this area of construction/development whereas NY & other global cities are more about flashiness to draw tenants, residents, and tourists. More than that I view it as a selfish, more greedy shift in development philosophy which focuses on the floor-to-ceiling views that tenants/residents get, not so much that the public gets of the actual building. I'm fine with having economic towers that look sleek, but we're an architecture town. Extreme example but we don't want our new building philosophy to end up like Seoul where it looks like copy & pasted towers then some dramatic supertall(s). One of my favorite things about living here is the variety of architecture and how it often feels like an outdoor museum, but seeing 4-5 of these similar height econo-boxes in one prime location makes me a bit sad for what could've been.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Are you aware of the fact that Terra Cotta was the "cheap alternative to stone driven by cost cutting capitalists" of it's day? Literally Terra Cotta was mass produced fireproofing that was lighter weight and less work than stone and brick.

It's like Victorian architecture. We often label anything victorian as if it's some sort of hand crafted masterpiece without realizing that the entire style was made possible by the advent of mass produced building materials in the UK during the 1800s. The relatively plain and geometric craftsman sytle was actually a rejection of these manufactured and overwrought styles. Simplicity isn't an analogue to cheap...

Yeah, I've never understood people's fascination with terra cotta. I like it indoor, in the scale of a room, or of a single residential floor, or maybe as a few accents outside. But a whole building? Why?

[emathias]

I like this okay, but in hindsight I wonder what it might look like if it were tilted forward, with a cutting bow, as a tip to the bows of ships.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by emathias

I like this okay, but in hindsight I wonder what it might look like if it were tilted forward, with a cutting bow, as a tip to the bows of ships.

A real tip to the passing vessels would be a terrace spot that could be raised and lowered as the wheelhouses of the local tugs are ( so they can pass under the bridges ).

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

I'm not a height fetishist or knee-jerk loather of blue glass, but I have to admit to getting a bit tired of blue glass boxes that aren't making much effort. The quality of glass may be nice, the street/river-level engagement isn't bad, but for a PRIME location in Chicago, it strikes me as a wasted opportunity to make a statement other than "I'm not offensive" or "it could have been worse." In 5 years no one is going to be thinking about this building as an architectural accomplishment.

Yeah, I kinda agree here. The first wave of 700-800 foot towers along Wacker were nice, but it's starting to bland out a bit with all of the blue glass now. I feel like we need a few towers to break the pattern here. Maybe something tall at 132 North Franklin......

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

I'm not a height fetishist or knee-jerk loather of blue glass, but I have to admit to getting a bit tired of blue glass boxes that aren't making much effort. The quality of glass may be nice, the street/river-level engagement isn't bad, but for a PRIME location in Chicago, it strikes me as a wasted opportunity to make a statement other than "I'm not offensive" or "it could have been worse." In 5 years no one is going to be thinking about this building as an architectural accomplishment.

We all feel this way more or less but I would love to talk to someone from Pelli or whoever is on this project to understand their constraints. I am sure the Pelli team is all skyscraper nerds and would love a 1000 ft+ tower, and they originally designed a much taller tower (though probably before digging into engineering details etc). But IIRC there is a two view corridor that must be preserved for the Apparel Center. So that leaves a relatively small footprint for the building. Being commercial, it needs a lot of elevators. As you can see the core is already 50%+ of the first 40 floors and the building is only 60 floors.

Given that towers are 'one way in one way out', things get much worse as you go higher. The only way it could have been supertall I think would maybe have been all residential which has a lower elevator ratio, which I think would have been a disappointment given the location. I'm still holding out for finding out the real reasons for the height reduction from a reputable source one of these days.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

We all feel this way more or less but I would love to talk to someone from Pelli or whoever is on this project to understand their constraints. I am sure the Pelli team is all skyscraper nerds and would love a 1000 ft+ tower, and they originally designed a much taller tower (though probably before digging into engineering details etc). But IIRC there is a two view corridor that must be preserved for the Apparel Center. So that leaves a relatively small footprint for the building. Being commercial, it needs a lot of elevators. As you can see the core is already 50%+ of the first 40 floors and the building is only 60 floors.

Given that towers are 'one way in one way out', things get much worse as you go higher. The only way it could have been supertall I think would maybe have been all residential which has a lower elevator ratio, which I think would have been a disappointment given the location. I'm still holding out for finding out the real reasons for the height reduction from a reputable source one of these days.

It's always worth remembering, as you point out, that all developers are working within constraints. But I don't think height is a problem here (for me, at least). It's plenty tall enough to permit an architecturally significant building. With its location it's being given every opportunity on a silver platter. And yet, this is the best Chicago can do? I know people like to whine and hand-wring about mediocrity and the low bar being set blah, blah, blah, so I'm hardly being controversial here, but... damn... It's bad enough that 300 N Michigan is allowed to obstruct most views of Carbon and Carbide, but then we turn over this incredible WP site to this??

[Infinite Loop]

I don't think this is a bellwether for Chicago as much is it simply reflects what the stakeholders in the project want from it. To its credit, each redesign was more tasteful than the last imo, going from amorphous deodorant sticks/sails to this. I don't think anyone here objectively dislikes WP South but it's obviously more impressive in a vacuum than when you put it in context of its more eye-catching neighbors. It's classy but feels overwhelmingly corporate and subdued for the size of the development.

[rivernorthlurker]

Is the video on https://www.333wolfpoint.com new or updated? Everything reflects latest plans. It's new to me at least.

Some nice angles



Also views are going to be 11/10.