SkyscraperCity Forum banner

CHICAGO | Wolf Point | 204m | 668ft | 60 fl | 148m | 485ft | 48 fl | Com

217K views 516 replies 155 participants last post by  Hudson11 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Height: 950ft+, 750ft, 625ft
Floor count: 80, 60, 50
Location: Wolf Point (confluence of South, North, and Main Branches of the Chicago River)
Neighborhood: River North
Architect: Pelli Clarke Pelli; bKL Architecture
Developer: Hines Interests LP
Website: Wolf Point Chicago

Note: A recent design revision is hinting towards a tallest tower of over 1,000 ft.











View from Wolf Point: (taken by i_am_hydrogen)



West Tower:


http://www.di.net/almanac/firms/bkl-architecture-llc/
 
See less See more
7
#102 ·
May 16, 2008



No news, just a current picture of Wolf Point.
I am thinkin those folks in Riverbend having paid a fortune for their amazing river views aren't going to be so happy to see this happen... What a sucky way to loose property value.
 
#112 ·
That picture makes the parking lot look good! :p But what a waste of valuable land... I think any building there would be an improvement...it doesn't have to be ridiculously tall.
Yes it does....

No... You're correct that it's a valuable waste of land. But, it's location demands a stunning project.
Exactly.

Personally, I'd love to see and architectural competition for that sight. I know that Peilli is allegedly designing the towers, but I'd like to have more planning and something more stunning.

I'd like 2-towers instead of 3 to allow for more open space and to get much taller structures.
 
#113 ·
I definitely think the developer needs to take their time on this site and come up with something exceptional here. Another component I would like to see added is some sort of footbridge stretching west across the north branch.

Nothing bulky. Something thin and twisting like a Calatrava-style bridge would be an interesting contrast to the freight rail just north of the site. The land west of the river is rather disjointed due to all of the rail running through it, but development is going up over there as well. The area is just too isolated from downtown right now. It would be nice to link that up a bit better.
 
#114 ·
No... You're correct that it's a valuable waste of land. But, it's location demands a stunning project.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I respectfully disagree. Personally I think the location demands a stunning park. This special location that give the Chicago River its famous "Y" is a civic treasure. Given a choice, I'd put a park in place that measures up to the stature of the location and would be a center point along an extended river walk. Such a park would have some wonderful company in its setting, places that also enhance the water in front and the skyline behind it: Pittsubrgh's Golden Triangle and Manhattan's Battery Park.
 
#116 ·
Never really thought of how it could integrate into the riverwalk. Interesting. OK then, just one (really tall, spectacularly designed) tower, with plenty of public park on the east and south sides. Just as long as it helps to hide the hideous Sun-Times building.
I'm all for that. :cheers:
 
#117 ·
Never really thought of how it could integrate into the riverwalk. Interesting. OK then, just one (really tall, spectacularly designed) tower, with plenty of public park on the east and south sides. Just as long as it helps to hide the hideous Sun-Times building.

good one, Flub; that's one of those cases where you can have your cake and eat it. Height saves you room on the ground and gives you a magnificent backdrop.

Wolf Point is an iconic site for Chicago, not only because of its location where the three branches meet and the views that make that site so enticing, but due to its role in the early history of Chicago. It is a shame that the city did not have access to the waterfront portion of this real estate ages ago.

There is something that is very special that we could get from a park at Wolf Point that Chicago oddly does not have but other cities do: a small park of importance in the core of the city. In most cases (i.e. NY's Union Sq, SF's Union Sq, Boston Commons, etc.), it really is a space surrounded by the city's towers. In other cases, like I mentioned above, it is related to the adjoining waters as in Pgh's Golden Triangle and NY's Battery Park.

Chicago has no truly special small parks as such (and obviously I must be including Millennium Park as part of Grant Park in my argument). Such a park can be a gem in how it utilizes small space for great success and provides easy access to the high rises that surround it.
 
#118 ·
^^ edge, I completely agree with you, but I think there would be a problem with accessability. Unless a bridge or 2 is built connecting that spot with the loop and west side, I don't think it would work (although the Franklin bridge is there). The river walk is also key. I'd love to see some kind of design that pays respect to the history of that spot.

It was on that spot our city was founded (in the Fort Dearborn days). I say bring back the Sauganash Hotel!
 
#119 ·
good one, Flub; that's one of those cases where you can have your cake and eat it. Height saves you room on the ground and gives you a magnificent backdrop.

Wolf Point is an iconic site for Chicago, not only because of its location where the three branches meet and the views that make that site so enticing, but due to its role in the early history of Chicago. It is a shame that the city did not have access to the waterfront portion of this real estate ages ago.

There is something that is very special that we could get from a park at Wolf Point that Chicago oddly does not have but other cities do: a small park of importance in the core of the city. In most cases (i.e. NY's Union Sq, SF's Union Sq, Boston Commons, etc.), it really is a space surrounded by the city's towers. In other cases, like I mentioned above, it is related to the adjoining waters as in Pgh's Golden Triangle and NY's Battery Park.

Chicago has no truly special small parks as such (and obviously I must be including Millennium Park as part of Grant Park in my argument). Such a park can be a gem in how it utilizes small space for great success and provides easy access to the high rises that surround it.
Tower plus park sounds like a winner. BTW does the park across from the Newberry Library qualify or is it too removed?
 
#120 ·
BTW does the park across from the Newberry Library qualify or is it too removed?
From someone who lives in the area, I'd say its a good example, but a little far off than what I think edgs is talking about. I think its an excellent location to draw residents of the downtown area. We know we'll at least get some type of park/public space. that is a law on the river now correct?
 
#121 ·
Tower plus park sounds like a winner. BTW does the park across from the Newberry Library qualify or is it too removed?
oh, I thought about it (and Water Tower Sq, too), but as nice as both are, they don't have blockbuster written all over them. Water Tower is too small and Newberry is too residential.

cbotnyse, I would think that the Franklin-Orleans bridge would work well for Loop access.
 
#122 ·
I definitely think the developer needs to take their time on this site and come up with something exceptional here. Another component I would like to see added is some sort of footbridge stretching west across the north branch.

Nothing bulky. Something thin and twisting like a Calatrava-style bridge would be an interesting contrast to the freight rail just north of the site. The land west of the river is rather disjointed due to all of the rail running through it, but development is going up over there as well. The area is just too isolated from downtown right now. It would be nice to link that up a bit better.
there's no place to connect it to tje other side. it would have to do diagonally southwest-northeast. you have Fulton House and Riverbend directly across the way. Also, it would have to have the same clearance as all the other bridges to allow clearance of barges, commercial and private boats.

Just have them restore/reactivate the railroad bridge utilizing light rail as well as a pedestrain corssing. That bridge would also have to be raised because of it's lack of clearance.
 
#123 ·
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I respectfully disagree. Personally I think the location demands a stunning park. This special location that give the Chicago River its famous "Y" is a civic treasure. Given a choice, I'd put a park in place that measures up to the stature of the location and would be a center point along an extended river walk. Such a park would have some wonderful company in its setting, places that also enhance the water in front and the skyline behind it: Pittsubrgh's Golden Triangle and Manhattan's Battery Park.
You're right.

You're in the minority.

I'd only go along with a park covering the entire site if the Apparel Mart were demolished and a mega-tall tower were built in its place.
 
#124 ·
there's no place to connect it to tje other side. it would have to do diagonally southwest-northeast. you have Fulton House and Riverbend directly across the way. Also, it would have to have the same clearance as all the other bridges to allow clearance of barges, commercial and private boats.

Just have them restore/reactivate the railroad bridge utilizing light rail as well as a pedestrain corssing. That bridge would also have to be raised because of it's lack of clearance.
I disagree here. There are two options for pedestrian bridges:

1) extend w. mart drive west over the river on the north side of the Wolf Pt. site
2) run a bridge diagonally southwest from the point.

The reason I cited Calatrava was that he is known for two things when it comes to bridges. The first being thin, graceful curving lines that don't obstruct views of the skyline. The second is his incredible appreciation for bridges including complex physics, cantilevered sections, etc. Realistically, either of those two routes would work, and someone could easily engineer a boat-friendly solution. This could include a center span that actually restracts toward land on either side. It could also include a two spans that meet in the middle with the ability to both turn 90 degrees clock or counter clock when something of significant height needs to come through.

The only remaining requirement is that the bridge span would need to be a good 15-20 feet above the water to eliminate the need to raise for barges. That's not a problem.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top