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)

Kumdogmillionaire Oct 4, 2016 8:40 PM

Anyone notice that "Editor" over at ChicagoArchitectureBlog has been ignoring this news ever since we called him out for not only being wrong about it but also being smug about it? The guy is acting like a baby hahahaha

Tom Servo Oct 4, 2016 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen (Post 7582946)
Check out this dope ass video of Wolf Point West
Video Link

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!

r18tdi Oct 4, 2016 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7583512)
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.

patrick84 Oct 4, 2016 11:06 PM

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."

r18tdi Oct 4, 2016 11:10 PM

"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.

Mikemak27 Oct 5, 2016 3:18 AM

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/

Domer2019 Oct 5, 2016 3:25 AM

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.

rlw777 Oct 5, 2016 3:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikemak27 (Post 7583873)
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.

Tom Servo Oct 5, 2016 5:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7583879)
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.

BVictor1 Oct 5, 2016 5:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7583985)
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.

Tom Servo Oct 5, 2016 5:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7583995)
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...

BVictor1 Oct 5, 2016 5:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7584001)
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.

denizen467 Oct 5, 2016 6:30 AM

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?

BVictor1 Oct 5, 2016 7:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7584031)
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...

UPChicago Oct 5, 2016 1:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 7583672)
"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?

LouisVanDerWright Oct 5, 2016 2:06 PM

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.

UPChicago Oct 5, 2016 2:37 PM

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.png

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.

The Best Forumer Oct 5, 2016 3:01 PM

Kinda reminds me of Rockefeller in NYC.

Pilton Oct 5, 2016 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 7584218)
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.

bcp Oct 5, 2016 4:39 PM

There will be bad traffic..it's a city..so what?


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:11 AM.

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