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

[Steely Dan]

yeah, that's a really good write-up by Kamin about the shortcomings of this plan.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I still think there needs to be a pedestrian bridge over to River Point's plaza

A bridge from where?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, that's a really good write-up by Kamin about the shortcomings of this plan.

Yea but will it actually change anything?

[denizen467]

^ Where Kamin and Daley were both presiding, definitely possible. With Kamin/Rahm, seems like less so, but still a good chance.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

A bridge from where?

Also, it'd have to be operable (is there any height above which operable bridges would not be required on the North Branch?) -- I assume we don't have precedent for pedestrian-only operable bridges yet. I wonder if there are any unusual issues with a ped-only movable bridge -- probably as long as it is sizeable enough to permit police, ambulance, cleaning, snowplowing, and lighting/other repair vehicles to drive onto it it'd be ok.

[ardecila]

Said bridge would roughly be a mirror to the Orleans Street bridge, connecting River Point's elevated plaza to Wolf Point's elevated plaza and allowing pedestrians to pass above the Union Station approach and the river. I don't see why it needs to allow vehicles of any kind, except possibly the ride-on snowblowers the city uses. Presumably, maintenance would be performed by the landlords of each development. The aim is to provide a shortcut to Union and Ogilvie Stations while activating that corner of the West Loop.

A lift bridge seems easiest to build, since it doesn't need a huge pit for a counterweight. Here's one in Manchester of roughly the same dimensions that Chicago would need. Notice how it takes up very little land on either side. The towers could be designed to harmonize with the glassy aesthetic of the developments on each side.

Salford Quays Pedestrian Bridge

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea but will it actually change anything?

Kamin has some real pull, more than us foumers moaning. That said I think BK checks out this site for it has a large number of foumers that care about buildings and do folllow what he says. He has a larger mouth piece than we do but that does not mean he does not read listen to what is posted.

[Zapatan]

Well in that case I suppose it's possible to see taller, better looking buildings than these maybe?

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Said bridge would roughly be a mirror to the Orleans Street bridge, connecting River Point's elevated plaza to Wolf Point's elevated plaza and allowing pedestrians to pass above the Union Station approach and the river. I don't see why it needs to allow vehicles of any kind, except possibly the ride-on snowblowers the city uses. Presumably, maintenance would be performed by the landlords of each development. The aim is to provide a shortcut to Union and Ogilvie Stations while activating that corner of the West Loop.

A lift bridge seems easiest to build, since it doesn't need a huge pit for a counterweight. Here's one in Manchester of roughly the same dimensions that Chicago would need. Notice how it takes up very little land on either side. The towers could be designed to harmonize with the glassy aesthetic of the developments on each side.

It's never been clear to me how the city would respond if one person or a large group of people, such as protestors, refused to get off a bridge when it was about to be raised. Between that situation, the need to clean and snowplow quickly and efficiently (e.g. just use the same streetsweepers used for adjacent streets) and keep bridge ice from forming, to make concrete or asphalt repairs (if those materials are used on the bridge), to do metalwork, lighting, or other repairs, or to respond to medical situations, it seems it would be just too useful in too many situations to forego having adequate girth for vehicles. Naturally, I am talking about emergency or other nighttime city work, not anything actually normally used for vehicular traffic. Besides, it might be a good place to run a bike lane or at least encourage people to walk their bikes across, especially if Kinzie doesn't work out well, so you'd want the width anyway.

In view of it being a bridge over a public, navigable waterway that must be ready to function to raise and lower on a specific schedule coordinated with all the other bridges, among other reasons, I don't think it would be realistic to have the private landowners handling maintenance or any aspect of running the bridge, other than maybe being subcontractors of the city for cleaning or similar limited services.

As far as a lift bridge goes - how much clearance is afforded by the lowest (or is it the only?) lift bridge on the South Branch?

Not to dwell on public disobedience too much, but a lift bridge could kind of invite urban scofflaws to try to "surf" the bridge while it is being lifted, and it would certainly allow bucket-beaters or other musical or panhandling, or benevolent or other, squatters to just leave their junk on the bridge while they temporarily evacuate during the lift. So if I were the city I might choose a bascule bridge, whose basic physics easily ensure the police need to be called in to intervene in far fewer situations. Granted, the bridges lift only infrequently, but having just 1 bridge-lift screw up the entire sequence of lifts could be quite a logistical mess because of the bridge tower teams and police that need to hopscotch down the river, not to mention the predictability to downtown's traffic and the vessels themselves waiting in a line in the river.

[TallBob]

I actually hope they end up with a 2 - building design. 80 floors of total office space in one building is a lot of office space. Id like to see a 1000 - 1100 footer, and a mixed-use 800-900 footer. You'd end up with a little more open space, which is one of the things they're after.

[Nowhereman1280]

The pedestrian bridge idea is actually a really phenomenal idea. Such a structure would almost make economic sense considering Hines controls both projects and it would add a great deal of value to the Wolf Point site. There is tremendous value in office leasing to be had by locating close to commuter rail. Such a bridge would make these offices less than 1/2 mile from Ogalvie instead of over 1 mile. This is something we should really push for.

The complicating factor, of course, is liability and the fact that it would draw huge numbers of pedestrians through the site. There would probably be large numbers of people taking this diagonal short cut every day to the train from River North which is something Hines/The Kennedy's might not be hot on. However, this could also simply be addressed by adding a large retail component that would take advantage of and service this pedestrian flow. Retail a la Trump could be quite successful here if they built a bridge.

[ChiPhi]

^^^
I actually like 3 towers more than 2. The lot is already relatively sparse and suburban feeling; the last thing we need IMO is to take an entire tower out for the sake of height.

I also reread BK's article. I have a few points I'd like to bring up for discussion. The first is getting mixed use retail/ restaurants onto the first floor of the buildings. IMO what makes the whole "building in a park" thing work is the openness and lightness of the first floor (860-880 N LSD comes to mind). If they can figure out a way to keep the lightness and translucency to keep an urban park-like setting (instead of making it into a suburban office-park setting) that'd be great; I just don't see how one would accomplish that. Also, as far as the traffic study goes, would it not be prudent to add auto- traffic to a bridge from wolf point to the Fulton River District? It could lead either from Mart Dr diagonally to the former location of the boutique hotel at River pointe or straight across directly to the area North of Riverbend; both would empty onto canal street. To me, it seems a good way to ease people's worries while leaving some parking spaces for Hines to make a profit off of. Plus, Reilly/ Rahm would have a very just cause to hold such an investment hostage from the developer. They either build a bridge or cut the parking. Either way, we win.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Well in that case I suppose it's possible to see taller, better looking buildings than these maybe?

Nothing has suggested that. But, hopefully we do get that. After the new Waterview design disappointing us today, and the fact there are very few spaces left along the main part of the river, I feel like this should be a supertall.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

Nothing has suggested that. But, hopefully we do get that. After the new Waterview design disappointing us today, and the fact there are very few spaces left along the main part of the river, I feel like this should be a supertall.

I was referring to Kamin's article criticizing the alleged dullness of the project, if it is changed for the better, then there should be taller, better looking buildings.

Let's keep our fingers crossed

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I was referring to Kamin's article criticizing the alleged dullness of the project, if it is changed for the better, then there should be taller, better looking buildings.

Let's keep our fingers crossed

True, when is the next meeting ?

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by bnk

Kamin has some real pull, more than us foumers moaning.

Is this still true? I don’t get the impression that Rahm really cares about design issues in the same way Daley does, and he certainly doesn’t give a damn about what the Tribune thinks abut anything. Although I think his “damn the torpedoes—full speed ahead!” attitude is welcome in a lot of cases (absenteeism, CTA improvements), I’d rather not have that be the case here—getting these built with a minimum of fuss might be good for the city’s tax rolls, but it would be disappointing from an urbanist and architectural standpoint.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

Is this still true? I don’t get the impression that Rahm really cares about design issues in the same way Daley does, and he certainly doesn’t give a damn about what the Tribune thinks abut anything. Although I think his “damn the torpedoes—full speed ahead!” attitude is welcome in a lot of cases (absenteeism, CTA improvements), I’d rather not have that be the case here—getting these built with a minimum of fuss might be good for the city’s tax rolls, but it would be disappointing from an urbanist and architectural standpoint.

I wouldn't say dissapointing, these are great looking buildings, I would give the main tower an 8/10. But I am starting to feel like Wolf Point deserves an 10/10 design. So are you guys saying you prefer Daley to Rahm

[jarta]

Originally Posted by TallBob

I actually hope they end up with a 2 - building design. 80 floors of total office space in one building is a lot of office space. Id like to see a 1000 - 1100 footer, and a mixed-use 800-900 footer. You'd end up with a little more open space, which is one of the things they're after.

Good news for some; bad news (maybe) for others.

The 1998 Agreement exists and limits the number of towers to 2. However, it was amended in 2004 to allow up to 3 towers to be built.

So, I was wrong. But the existence of the amendment to the private agreement begs the question of whether 3 towers should be built on Wolf Point, whether the design and orientation of these 3 towers is appropriate for the site and whether the riverbank treatment and setback provisions and the history of Wolf Point create a need for further attention to the development plan to make the open space section and river frontage truly available to all people and not just become a pleasant creation to be enjoyed by those who live and work at Wolf Point.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

It's never been clear to me how the city would respond if one person or a large group of people, such as protestors, refused to get off a bridge when it was about to be raised.

It's pretty clear to me.

[MODERATOR EDIT = IMAGE REMOVED]

Realistically, I think the fear is a little overblown. Local Chicago protests are generally very orderly affairs and almost all take place in Daley Plaza and Grant Park, both of which hold symbolic weight as the doorstep of power. It's only if we host events like G8, NATO, or political conventions that civil disobedience throughout the downtown becomes an issue. Given how rarely such events will occur, I think the everyday benefits to pedestrians and commuters outweigh the delay that a yacht or barge might experience during a sit-in.

Also - does the North Branch even need operable bridges anymore? The new Halsted bridge is fixed and the new Division bridges will also be fixed. Maybe it makes more sense to relocate the one or two sailboat yards to the South Branch. I don't think most barge/tug combos need bridges to be raised anyway, so the industry could remain. Then the new bridge at Chicago (and the hypothetical one at Wolf Point) could be fixed spans.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by jarta

headcase, You did not ask, but Section 2.4 of the River Corridor Guidelines and Standards is entitled "Improvements or Structures Not Permitted in Setback Area."

Thank you for the location of the info, it will interesting to see how this all shakes out.

SSDD

[Mr Downtown]

A bridge from River Point over to Wolf's Point would be a nice idea. Costly, though. I though I had the current regs handy, but I think the North Branch is still navigable to Goose Island.

A pedestrian bridge wouldn't have to be a Chicago-type bascule, though it might be a nice opportunity to use one (like the old North Avenue bridge) that's no longer suitable for autos. Or it could be a cool design like the Slauerhoffbrug in Leeuwarden: