SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | Salesforce Tower | 835 FT | 60 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217949)

BVictor1 Jul 13, 2015 3:12 PM

A bit of information...

The architects of both the south and east tower is indeed Pelli/Clarke/Pelli

The south PD allows for 950'. However, this usually means to the underside of the top floor and doesn't include fins, blades, or spires. The height to the top of the spire is still TBD. Number of floors is TBD.

The PD for the east tower allows 750', floors TBD.

Timetable for the start of Phase II is still TBD.

I know this isn't much, but it's what i have right now.

Chi-Sky21 Jul 13, 2015 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 7093339)
I may be in the minority but it looked better before.......

I like the old south tower better also...i do like the new east tower better though. I think the real deciding factor for me is when i get to see a view of it from the side.

munchymunch Jul 13, 2015 5:45 PM

This would be my favorite spot for an observation deck.

intrepidDesign Jul 13, 2015 6:34 PM

I gotta say, I think the south tower would look better without the spire, supertall status be damned.

SamInTheLoop Jul 13, 2015 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7093355)
A bit of information...

The architects of both the south and east tower is indeed Pelli/Clarke/Pelli


As in, they have been awarded a contract to be the design architect of these two towers - or, as in, PCP, the master plan architect of WP, has also produced this new rendering depicting these two towers??

SamInTheLoop Jul 13, 2015 6:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 (Post 7093364)
I like the old south tower better also...i do like the new east tower better though. I think the real deciding factor for me is when i get to see a view of it from the side.


I feel the exact same way. Original south tower superior to this new rendered design, east tower may be a bit better in the new one.......




These folks that get all Aspergers over whether a tower reaches 1,000' or not are really, uh, weird.....

lu9 Jul 13, 2015 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 7093585)
This would be my favorite spot for an observation deck.

How about an external elevator concept that goes up that center seem of the south face?

For a million reasons, I'm sure that isn't feasible, but I would wait in line to ride it..

Pilton Jul 13, 2015 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch (Post 7093345)
What "infrastructure improvements" might need to be made as a result of another red herring traffic study specifically? With the exception of tinkering with dedicated turn lanes, etc. there is really nothing that could or should be done...

If there is nothing that might need to be done, why does the current zoning require a new traffic study before Phase 2 of Wolf Point goes forward? If something needs to be done concerning pedestrian, bike and vehicle traffic and nothing can be done, maybe the current allowed density prohibits safe or reasonable access to WP?

But, I happen to think something can always be done. Bike lanes can be relocated. A subway and pedestrian (and bike?) tunnel can be dug under the Confluence from River Point to Wolf Point. The Kinzie Street upramp to Orleans can be re-opened. Car traffic can be allowed into WP from Kinzie and lower Orleans Street (currently prohibited in the PD zoning). Metra tracks at Canal and/or Clilnton could be lowered to go under one or both. The old RR bridge at Carroll Street can be retrofitted to provide access from Canal or Clinton. Those are just a few options that come to mind.

Why not wait for the new traffic study to be released before maintaining that nothing could or should be done?

Steely Dan Jul 13, 2015 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilton (Post 7093765)
If there is nothing that might need to be done, why does the current zoning require a new traffic study before Phase 2 of Wolf Point goes forward?

because that's how the city that works, "works". it's just how the game is played.

bones must be regularly thrown to the endlessly yapping NIMBY pack to shut them up, however temporarily.

pilsenarch Jul 13, 2015 8:12 PM

ha! well said, Steely... and Pilton/Jarta, some of your ideas might be reasonable, some are good ideas if we had oh, I don't know, a quadzillion dollars to spend on public transportation needs in the metro area... but none of which are necessary for this project to be successfully built and operated...

munchymunch Jul 13, 2015 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign (Post 7093662)
I gotta say, I think the south tower would look better without the spire, supertall status be damned.

I usually hate spires but I kind of like it on this one. Hopefully they don't fuck it up like 1 WTC.

GregBear24 Jul 13, 2015 9:14 PM

Tired of BS
 
I rarely post anything on here, but nothing drives me more through the ceiling than people complaining about density in the core of America's second largest urban center (LA doesn't count since Downers Grove would fit in LA County). When I moved to the city at 13th and Michigan in 2006, that area was so quiet despite being a block from Grant Park, but when 4 new high rises went up within 2 blocks of me, I was more excited about the growth of small businesses and the addition of entertainment and street life. Certainly, some people on Prairie and Indiana in the low rises didn't like it so much, but here's the bottom line:

When anyone decides to live within a few miles of the center of a large city's core, they effectively waive their right to oppose development based on density. You don't like too many parking spaces? Fine. You don't like the street level design and interaction the building would have with pedestrians? Fine. However, wanting some reasonable changes is a lot different from opposing something because it'll add traffic, block your views, create noise, and add people to your neighborhood. You live in Chicago, and it's what you signed up for. The quiet neighborhoods within the city's core should never have even existed in the first place, and even so are inevitably going to lose out to property values that will demand much more $ per square foot in the long run. Wolf Point is centralized very well in the middle of our nation's second largest city core. It commands density and unofficial landmark status in high rise design and use. NIMBYs have a purpose, but they make their reasonable points of opposition practically moot when they start bantering about their so-called unalienable rights to live in a cute, calm town on a river. Move to beautiful Batavia, Geneva, St. Charles if that's what you want. A river, some decent architecture and history, and less traffic. Then, you can complain when someone wants to build a 2million sf development next to your house and have logic on your side for once. I can't wait for Wolf Pointe to build out and stand impressive on the river's Y!

Domer2019 Jul 13, 2015 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7093355)
A bit of information...

The architects of both the south and east tower is indeed Pelli/Clarke/Pelli

The south PD allows for 950'. However, this usually means to the underside of the top floor and doesn't include fins, blades, or spires. The height to the top of the spire is still TBD. Number of floors is TBD.

The PD for the east tower allows 750', floors TBD.

Timetable for the start of Phase II is still TBD.

I know this isn't much, but it's what i have right now.


Does this mean that the current design's roof height is close to 950'? Because I thought the consensus was that it is near if not more than 1000', and that both current and past designs were definitively over 950'. I'm confused as to whether a new PD will happen, or if there is less to be certain about height-wise than we think. (does mechanical space count?)

munchymunch Jul 13, 2015 10:19 PM

Underside of top floor so.

950 + the top floor,crown, spires, and parapet.

LouisVanDerWright Jul 13, 2015 10:28 PM

I think it would be sick if they could incorporate the municipal device into the detailing of this building in some way. The new design is a bit more throwback and Pomo, so they may as well do it right and embed little Y's in the mullions or the crown or something. This is the right site for it considering this site is what the Y represents.

Zapatan Jul 13, 2015 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 7094008)
Underside of top floor so.

950 + the top floor,crown, spires, and parapet.

When comparing it to the other buildings in pixels it's at least 1000' to the roof, probably a little higher. The spire probably close to 1100 or more? :shrug:

This will be an awesome addition.

ardecila Jul 14, 2015 3:43 AM

I just found an interior rendering for the new Wolf Point Hotel:

http://40.media.tumblr.com/43ff7d75b...gbto1_1280.jpg

Ugh. :facepalm: Such disappoint.

emathias Jul 14, 2015 4:23 AM

TimeOut has small picture of Wolf Point with the south tower sporting a spire.
http://media.timeout.com/images/102776957/image.jpg
TimeOut Chicago

Taller Jul 14, 2015 5:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7094369)
TimeOut has small picture of Wolf Point with the south tower sporting a spire.
http://media.timeout.com/images/102776957/image.jpg
TimeOut Chicago

Make that 1250 feet tall and it would look nice, with an illuminated changing color spire. :notacrook:

Tom Servo Jul 14, 2015 7:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7094369)
TimeOut has small picture of Wolf Point with the south tower sporting a spire.
http://media.timeout.com/images/102776957/image.jpg
TimeOut Chicago

Wow. That looks almost cartoonishly tall. Hopefully we don't end up with something so graceless.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.