SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGOLAND | Urban Development in the Burbs (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198789)

Steely Dan Aug 24, 2012 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new.slang (Post 5808695)
That goes for any North Shore towns. It makes me sad we don't really have anything like them in Greater Toronto.....

the big reason for that can be explained by the data below:

metro chicago population 1930: ~4,365,000

metro toronto population 1931: ~810,000



metro toronto was simply a much, much smaller place than chicagoland back in the days of early 20th century suburban development.

new.slang Sep 4, 2012 7:19 PM

^mmhmm. suburban toronto is a mess, and for the most part awful. i've used google maps quite extensively and chicago seems to have lots of nice suburban areas (at least in the northern and western areas)

sorry to go off topic, but newer subdivisions suck. the lots are 40 feet wide, 20 of which constitute a double garage, because there is absolutely no where to walk to. and the houses are say maybe 10-15 feet away from the street making the area feel quite dense, without any of the benefits that comes with density. i'd much prefer to live in a pre war street car suburb or mid century ranch home thank you very much.

Steely Dan Sep 5, 2012 5:04 PM

^ that relatively high density single family home suburbia you see in metro toronto is not terribly common here in chicagoland. single family homes are generally given more breathing room here, but the suburbia being built today is still, for the most part, every bit as autocentric, disconnected, and mono-use, making for mind-numbingly boring communities.

i too much, MUCH prefer the suburbia of the early 20th century. it's the kind of suburbia i knew growing up in wilmette (north shore burb).

as mentioned before, toronto just wasn't a huge place yet when that early pattern of suburbia first developed. in fact, in 1930, toronto wouldn't have even ranked as one of the 10 largest metros in US/Canada.


1930 metro population:
  1. New York ---- 10,901,000
  2. Chicago ------- 4,365,000
  3. Philadelphia ---- 2,847,000
  4. Boston -------- 2,308,000
  5. Detroit -------- 2,105,000
  6. Pittsburgh ----- 1,954,000
  7. St. Louis ------ 1,294,000
  8. San Francisco - 1,290,000
  9. Cleveland ------ 1,195,000
  10. Montreal ------- 1,023,000
  11. Baltimore -------- 949,000
  12. Minneapolis ------ 832,000
  13. Buffalo ---------- 821,000
  14. Toronto --------- 810,000



another difference to consider is that chicago has had a large and fairly comprehensive commuter rail network serving its suburbs since the late 19th century, whereas commuter rail didn't really become a big thing in toronto until the 1960s. as a result chicagoland is littered with traditionally urban suburban town centers built around railroad stations that have been organically developing for over a century now.

the urban politician Nov 23, 2012 9:51 PM

I'd like to add Libertyville as another decent suburban downtown.

Not at the level of a Naperville, Oak Park (or even close), but quaint & attractive, with the Metra stop within
vicinity. Also, there appears to be a good amount of housing development occurring near Libertyville's downtown.

untitledreality Dec 28, 2012 9:30 PM

This is more a suburban development post, but given that Orland Park is positioning this development (and location) to be its 'downtown', I feel that it should be posted here.

I just happened to drive past it a few days ago as I was visiting some family members, it is pretty imposing even from a passerby vantage point on LaGrange.

Ninety7Fifty on the Park (Gmaps link http://goo.gl/maps/gygCD )

http://medialibrary.propertysolution...999e16a848.png

http://medialibrary.propertysolution...11b4a8c666.jpg

http://www.ninety7fifty.com/


Phase One looks to be about 295 units, with some pretty ambitious pricing in my opinion. $1300+ for a one bedroom in the burbs is pretty steep.

the urban politician Feb 9, 2014 2:40 AM

I like Oak Park but it seems to be stagnating. The way things are going, Naperville may soon eclipse it as Chicagoland's #2 downtown. I was in Naperville last week and there is a shitload of construction going on there. Plus you have the riverwalk.

Oak Park has the city feel and the better mass transit, but damn it I really hate how they have that goofy suburban shopping center with acres of parking right in the midst of downtown, and there seems to be very little new development happening.

Ch.G, Ch.G Feb 9, 2014 2:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6443624)
I like Oak Park but it seems to be stagnating. The way things are going, Naperville may soon eclipse it as Chicagoland's #2 downtown.

Oak Park and Naperville over Evanston? Nope.

the urban politician Feb 9, 2014 3:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 6443636)
Oak Park and Naperville over Evanston? Nope.

^ Oops, I should have said "Chicagoland's #2 suburban downtown".

Evanston is clearly perched at the top. But I think Oak Park may lose its #2 title soon if it doesn't get its act together

untitledreality Feb 9, 2014 3:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6443654)
Evanston is clearly perched at the top. But I think Oak Park may lose its #2 title soon if it doesn't get its act together

Even with the goofy shopping center on Lake street, Naperville is miles and miles behind Oak Park. A one block stretch on three streets does not magically overtake two separate destination commercial districts. Until Naperville starts treating its downtown more like a real neighborhood and less like a gimmick it will be remain down the list of suburban downtowns.

ardecila Feb 9, 2014 5:03 AM

If you think Oak Park is stagnating, you must not have realized where they started. There's been a huge amount of development there... the skyline is totally changed, the pedestrian malls have been removed, new public buildings have been constructed.

Lots of new buildings and proposals.

http://www.triblocal.com/oak-park-ri...2-12-26-40.jpg
src

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6443624)
Oak Park has the city feel and the better mass transit, but damn it I really hate how they have that goofy suburban shopping center with acres of parking right in the midst of downtown, and there seems to be very little new development happening.

I know this is a technicality, but the "suburban shopping center" you're probably thinking of is actually in River Forest, since it's west of Harlem.

There is a similar development on the Oak Park side (has Gap and Old Navy), but the urban design is much better. That development appears to have a large amount of parking, but most of that is actually city-owned parking lots where a massive development is planned.

(proposed site plan as of 2008; details may have changed)
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/c...id-america.jpg
src

munchymunch Feb 9, 2014 9:38 AM

Yay a thread on my home town Oak Park
Here's another possible building, seems like there is lots of interest seeming multiple developers are eyeing it. http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles...South-project/

ChiTownCity Feb 9, 2014 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6443754)
If you think Oak Park is stagnating, you must not have realized where they started. There's been a huge amount of development there... the skyline is totally changed, the pedestrian malls have been removed, new public buildings have been constructed.

Lots of new buildings and proposals.

http://www.triblocal.com/oak-park-ri...2-12-26-40.jpg
src

^ Is this proposal still active?

Also, what ever happened to that 50 story high rise (kind of resembled the Legacy) that was proposed for Evanston a few years ago? I'm guessing it's completely dead by now but I remember that the plans were altered and resubmitted but haven't heard anything about it since then...

Chi-Sky21 Feb 9, 2014 1:14 PM

That Orland Park development is huge, took out an old rundown strip mall also. And what is not seen in those picture is that they redid/upgraded the rail station next door to this development. Just cross a path to go from condo to train....Very nice.

MultiModal Feb 9, 2014 2:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 (Post 6443901)
That Orland Park development is huge, took out an old rundown strip mall also. And what is not seen in those picture is that they redid/upgraded the rail station next door to this development. Just cross a path to go from condo to train....Very nice.

The station itself is very nice but the SWS is one of the worst metra lines. From that station at 143rd it takes an hour to get into the city with no option for express trains even at rush hour. Don't get me wrong I like the development but there is a lot more to be done.

Chi-Sky21 Feb 9, 2014 2:35 PM

Express from Orland would be great, as part of the renovation i believe they built some extra track into that station, maybe for future express? or maybe for realignment of that bridge over lagrange. Also, they should expand service on the Heritage corridor, the lack of trains on that line is a joke.

the urban politician Feb 9, 2014 2:43 PM

We've heard of proposals in Oak Park over the years but very little seems to be happening. I agree that it feels more 'genuine' than Naperville. I'm holding out hope for Oak Park, but you can't blame Naperville for trying. Once that hotel is built it will really do a lot to add even more vibrancy to its core

munchymunch Feb 9, 2014 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTownCity (Post 6443884)
^ Is this proposal still active?

Also, what ever happened to that 50 story high rise (kind of resembled the Legacy) that was proposed for Evanston a few years ago? I'm guessing it's completely dead by now but I remember that the plans were altered and resubmitted but haven't heard anything about it since then...

Yes, the proposal is still active, but the developer is having a hard time getting it together.
http://oakpark.suntimes.com/news/lak...312013:article

Segun Feb 9, 2014 6:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 5663671)
for their architecture alone, i've got to give props to downtown aurora and elgin. they're not the liveliest of places, but they have bigger bones than most suburban downtowns because they weren't built as burbs.

I'd Waukegan in the same category with them (along with Joliet). If these towns were in the LA Metro area, they'd be successful destinations to the extent of Pasadena or Santa Monica. Maybe someone will realize their potential in the next few decades. Then again, in that scenario, Gary would of been like Long Beach. This is one of the many reasons I find the LA metro so interesting, cause a lot of its like a Mediterranean looking, west coast version of what the bungalow belt might have looked like had urban Chicagoland kept growing.

There's some others not mentioned too, such as

Whiting, Indiana.
http://goo.gl/maps/mmSZ9

Michigan City, IN (would this be considered a suburb or sattelite city?)
http://goo.gl/maps/zjUZ7

Edit, I saw Joliet mentioned already.

untitledreality Feb 9, 2014 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segun (Post 6444160)
Then again, in that scenario, Gary would of been like Long Beach.

Yeah, because the largest Pacific Ocean port in North America is toooootally comparable to a mid continent Steel Mill town.

Segun Feb 9, 2014 9:40 PM

tooooooooooootaally.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:33 AM.

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