CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS

[jarta]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

Did this super quick in PS. Not that this is 100% accurate, but even if it is a little off, it doesn't seem like River Point's views of the river will be as affected (as we all know by now) yours will be.

Your design is way off.

1. Your design is based upon Wolf Point today where it has a bluff and a sloped riverbank and the south tower is behind them. But, the bluff will be gone and bulkheaded as far out as possible at Wolf Point, thus expanding the area for the south tower to be built into the river. You need to push the south tower out even beyond the current land area.

2. Also, an additional 20' which is (on your design) now navigable water which the developer proposes to fill, another Wolf Point expansion into the toward the south bank of the Main Stem. Additional jutting out into the River.

3. The south tower billows out from the support columns to cut off even more of River Point's view.

The post that started all this was a gushing one over the views that will exist at River Point after it will be built. The River Point views will be good. However, they will not be as advertised, so I responded. I was correcting a misassumption, as I am doing here with your design. That's all.

I love River Point. But, the 45-story River Point will be dwarfed by the 90-story south tower and the views down the river from the River Point platform, park and structure will be severely affected by the south tower on Wolf Point.

All you have to do is look at the advertised views on the River Point site which are linked in Post 1125 of this thread to determine that.

[harryc]

Little switch house is just a foundation wall and small hole now.

grounbreaking did not seem to break much ground.

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by jarta

...

All you have to do is look at the advertised views on the River Point site which are linked in Post 1125 of this thread to determine that.

Like someone should have made clear to you when you moved into your place across from Wolf Point, views aren't guaranteed. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around? The views they are advertising for River Point are as things stand currently. Only a moron would expect that view to remain exactly that way forever (hint, hint). Things change mon ami.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

Like someone should have made clear to you when you moved into your place across from Wolf Point, views aren't guaranteed. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around? The views they are advertising for River Point are as things stand currently. Only a moron would expect that view to remain exactly that way forever (hint, hint). Things change mon ami.

I agree with you completely about views not being protected, mon ami. It's the way things are supposed to be.

The point, made in response to the pictures whose link is posted in Post 1125 of this thread, is that River Point will not have unchanged views from the pictures taken several years ago because they are not protected. That's all.

And your design was not accurate. Others predicted my response - which is indeed accurate.

I want to see River Point built as quickly as possible and I want it to be a tremendous success, despite the diminished views - which will be much different views than presumed here. River Point will be a distinct improvement to the Confluence neighborhood because it will extend the Downtown area without violating/"gaming" the setback areas or riverwalk provisions. Go, River Point!

[JDMChicago]

Do office tenants really care that much about views? I mean, they're already right on the river, and it's not like their north/east views are going to be blocked out entirely, if at all, by Wolf Point. I thought they'd be more drawn to River Point because of it's new, nice, office space, not by a couple pictures on a website that may not even be current marketing material.

[Swicago Swi Sox]

Originally Posted by JDMChicago

Do office tenants really care that much about views? I mean, they're already right on the river, and it's not like their north/east views are going to be blocked out entirely, if at all, by Wolf Point. I thought they'd be more drawn to River Point because of it's new, nice, office space, not by a couple pictures on a website that may not even be current marketing material.

I thought the same thing...yes wolf point will block part of their view eventually (a little more the further it is net south than north), but having the river as a natural barrier means that nothing even be built right up next to you. You will still have enough separation to have great sweeping views of nice buildings.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Is anyone really entitled to a view in perpetuity? I think if there was a real legal protection for such a thing, IBM would have exercised it to prevent the Trump building from going up -- rather than abandoning their landmark headquarters when they lost their unobstructed view of the river and moving across town.

I can understand being a little disappointed when your view gets altered by new construction, but it seems like one of those "thems the brakes" situations.

If the view out my bedroom window of Sears tower were obstructed by a new development I'd be annoyed, but I wouldn't feel like I had any justification to take a dump on the developer's doorstep to preserve my own view.

A good view in a city is a fleeting happenstance, a stroke of cosmic luck.

No one is entitled to view. Of course, cities can plan viewsheds to allow marketability for future development. But for example, I have a window facing West along a common wall. At anytime a tower could go up right against mine and my landlord would have no choice but to brick up my window. Personally I might leave or negotiate a reduction of rent (I pay for location not necessarily view.) But I'm sure there would be some people that would argue about design guidelines or setbacks as a means of blocking development entirely...not necessarily modifying it. Grab for the lowest hanging fruit right? But I've worked on PDPs before that dealt with all sort of restrictions on heights, setbacks, flood planes, you name it. Often times developers will make a trade that benefits the public in some way to gain height or build on top of a river. I initially got involved in that discussion over in the Thread that shall not be be named. But I've ultimately given up. I know enough that if you really want to build a development in a certain way, there's a means to achieve it, no matter the legal threats or restrictions. I don't necessarily disagree that WP should be shifted back. It would be a prudent thing to do, but I will not let this detail drive my opinions on such an important development. A minor detail to me. Anyway, I'm off topic. My apologies.

[JDMChicago]

There's the worst example of a poured, scored, and painted podium sitting right at 333 n canal street. Is that not River Bend?

[ardecila]

On this site, a parking podium refers to the lower segment of a tower used for parking, not necessarily a deck. Usually, this is an opaque, windowless, and terribly ugly scar on the city. Sometimes, it's done beautifully (Contemporaine, etc).

For what it's worth, I don't think Riverbend is terrible. It's a clever design for a slender site, and parking podium is not horrendous. I just wish they'd get rid of that tacky neon at the building's crown and switch to floodlights.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

On this site, a parking podium refers to the lower segment of a tower used for parking, not necessarily a deck.

By "deck", do you mean something like a bustle? I think sometimes here we think of a parking podium as being something with distinct massing, whether stretching into a full bustle or just slightly jutting out, as opposed to merely the lower floors of a mono-massed tower. To the question of, say, "Is 235 W Van Buren going to be built with a parking podium?", sometimes people would have answered that it's not, to distinguish it from the Streeters of the world (and countless other SCB residential towers of this century), so I'm not sure this term's usage is totally settled at this point.

----
Anyway about views from River Point, I would say that if its tenants lose the view of the tower portion of the Merchandise Mart, then that is a material adverse loss of views. (FWIW, and not that this is enough to change the RP leasing situation.) An attractively built out Wolf Point also could make up for some of that in the end.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by JDMChicago

There's the worst example of a poured, scored, and painted podium sitting right at 333 n canal street. Is that not River Bend?

JDM, ... I learn something new every day. I thought a parking podium was a separate, sometimes attached, structure adjacent to the building, and not a parking area inside the main building structure.

Here's a link to the the "poured, scored and painted" parking podium at 333 N. Canal Street which River Point tenants will have to cope with. Neither opaque nor windowless. The River Point platform will reach almost to the bottom of the lowest window on the south side of RiverBend. The road/tunnel through RiverBend will be lower than the River Point platform/tunnel for trains. The River Point platform is really quite high above the River.

http://riverbendchicago.org/

There is no RiverBend unbroken wall of concrete facing River Point or the River that will be seen from offices at River Point. The unbroken wall of concrete or stone will be the up-to 30' high sides of the River Point plaza facing Canal Street north of the car entrance, facing the Riverwalk at River Point and facing Lake Street from just past Canal Street to the River.

But, the RR tunnel makes it so. The blank walls can't be avoided, but they could be better-designed to break up the monotony and coldness for those walking past River Point. Overall, River Point will be an asset to the FRDA neighborhood.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by ardecila

On this site, a parking podium refers to the lower segment of a tower used for parking, not necessarily a deck. Usually, this is an opaque, windowless, and terribly ugly scar on the city. Sometimes, it's done beautifully (Contemporaine, etc).

For what it's worth, I don't think Riverbend is terrible. It's a clever design for a slender site, and parking podium is not horrendous. I just wish they'd get rid of that tacky neon at the building's crown and switch to floodlights.

It may not be horrendous, but it's not designed. It's not architectural rather purely functional and appropriate for an alley condition. There's nothing wrong with designing a sexy loading dock. I feel it's my obligation in my profession to make that recommendation and be sure a service side can perform like a front facade when facing 99% of the public. If I can't do that, I'm not working hard enough.

[LouisVanDerWright]

The notion that the construction of Wolf Point will somehow materially affect the leasability of River Point is absolutely ridiculous. If anything it will improve the view by replacing a sea of asphalt and ugly cars with a park and series of shiny new towers. In any case it is not going to change anywhere near enough to actually be a factor in the decision making of a tenant.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Bingo.

All 'simulated view' features whether on commercial or residential development websites that I've seen feature actual photography to which renderings or massing 'blocks' for other proposed/planned/under construction developments within the view are NOT added, whether it's a different developer or same developer. What's further, Wolf Point has been the most media-covered major development proposal for some time in Chicago (since the boom years). This is the exact opposite of a 'secret'. Prospective tenants at River Point are not going to be 'deceived' or whatever else you imply. Also, as others have pointed out, the views from River Point will actually be MUCH IMPROVED with Wolf Point fully built out.

Assertions about the view corridor as depicted in the schematic being flawed are off base. I'm sure that according to Jarta, Hines will build halfway out into the River. That folks anticipated Jarta's reaction isn't testament to it being somehow based in reality, but rather of assuming the imminent resumption of his continuing bait 'n troll campaign as a virtual fait accompli. And, that would hardly indicate an intrinsic clairvoyance.

Jarta, keep going with your 'variance can only go down to 20' ' routine, please. That will be a guaranteed loser. At this point I'm almost hoping for a legal challenge on that basis, for the resulting loss (additional legal cost-related financial loss on top of ongoing home value loss for the Riverbend NIMBYs - with their still overvalued condo value assumptions).....

[jarta]

^^^ From page 10 of the 2005 Design Guidelines:

"2.8 VARIANCES

In certain cases a setback less than the recommended 30 feet may be permitted in order to address constrained sites; small, irregularly shaped sites; and to allow flexibility for optimal site plans.

Maximum variance (depth): Structures and private yards may encroach into the 30-foot river setback a maximum of ten (10) feet, so that the minimum setback is never less than twenty (20) feet from the top of bank. ..."

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...Guidelines.pdf

[wierdaaron]

That PDF is pretty interesting, Jarta. I don't know much about this kind of stuff so I can't chime in, but it does make me long for a more cohesive downtown riverfront experience. The river corridor is my favorite part of the city.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by jarta

^^^ From page 10 of the 2005 Design Guidelines:

"2.8 VARIANCES

In certain cases a setback less than the recommended 30 feet may be permitted in order to address constrained sites; small, irregularly shaped sites; and to allow flexibility for optimal site plans.

Maximum variance (depth): Structures and private yards may encroach into the 30-foot river setback a maximum of ten (10) feet, so that the minimum setback is never less than twenty (20) feet from the top of bank. ..."

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...Guidelines.pdf

Um......ahhhh......oh - what the heck: Against my better judgement, I'll go ahead and take this bait.

You do understand the concept of a guideline, I presume? That's number 1. Number 2, given generally understood meaning and use of a guideline, you can go ahead and dillute that meaning, use and enforceability by probably 90% or so in both practical and legal contexts when said guideline shows up in a planning document for the City of Chicago. Anyone who's been a Chicagoan - even those with the most modest of intellects - for 18 months or longer and has the most passing of interests in matters 'planning' and development could attest to that....

[Tom In Chicago]

Cleaned up some posts. . . this thread needs to get back on the tracks. . . baiting is trolling and will not be tolerated. . . please take any non-related discussion off-line. . .

. . .

[Mikemak27]

People's Gas had the right lane of Northbound Clinton closed off as they were working right in front of the River Point construction entrance. They were in one of the sewers I believe. I'm a construction newbie, but I would assume that this is more site prep work, similar to the switch house getting the wrecking ball last week.

[Duck From NY]

Damn it gets real on the Chicago threads!

Anyhow, the view down the Chicago River from the East is amazing. Can't imagine how the Canyon will look if/when this and Wolf Point are completed. You just don't get those kind of open views from the ground level over here.