CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

i mean theres simply no way whatsoever the streets in that neighborhood can absorb the additional traffic. and Brown/Red lines would become more of a disaster than they already are.

i dont even see why theyre touting a new metra station as some exciting proposal, theres already a station a few blocks away. all this will do is slow down trains. and it would only benefit workers on that specific line...what percentage would that even conceivably be? i mean id expect SB to hawk their site as hard as anyone else in the country, but its not a good fit.

honestly, im pretty skeptical chicago will land this at all and i think you guys are setting yourselves up for a lot of hearbreak by getting too emotionally invested in this so early. gonna be Olympics Pt II up in here....

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

One question to the forum: What exactly is a transitway?

A transitway is exactly as vague as it sounds. It's a dedicated corridor for some forms of transit. The city was speculating that a dedicated route only for pedestrians, cyclists, and BRT could be built for the site. It would be nice if there was some form of tram proposed (similar to the one in London's Canary Wharf), but that is highly unlikely at this point.

[gebs]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

honestly, im pretty skeptical chicago will land this at all and i think you guys are setting yourselves up for a lot of hearbreak by getting too emotionally invested in this so early. gonna be Olympics Pt II up in here....

I always try to err on the side of optimism ... but ever since all media outlets began saying that this deal is Chicago's to lose, I keep getting flashbacks to the city's 2016 Olympic bid and how it was also the clear and obvious choice.

[tjp]

I wish Sterling Bay owned the Old Post Office instead of this site. The renderings 601W released were pretty uninspiring..

[Khantilever]

Why did Sterling Bay go public with this so early? Maybe a sign that the City is putting its weight behind another site in the formal proposal.

As for the Finkl site, the only way I see it being viable is if the Chicago Central Area Committee's "Chicago Connecter" L line is constructed.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Why did Sterling Bay go public with this so early? Maybe a sign that the City is putting its weight behind another site in the formal proposal.

My feeling is that if SB was in serious talks they would not have put this out, doesn't really track with their style IMO. Not that I fault them for giving it a try.

601 W COs is probably the preferred here if there is one. Between the OPO and 550 W Jackson they can accommodate Amazon's more immediate space needs on a tight schedule.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by gebs

I always try to err on the side of optimism ... but ever since all media outlets began saying that this deal is Chicago's to lose, I keep getting flashbacks to the city's 2016 Olympic bid and how it was also the clear and obvious choice.

actually, as usual its moreso the local media that is hyping it up as a sure thing. most national publications seem more bearish on chicagos chances. i think ppl need to realize a LOT of cities are going to be submitting similar flashy proposals, and plenty more are going to throw up massive tax breaks as an even bigger incentive

[maru2501]

charlotte NC maybe a better fit

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

actually, as usual its moreso the local media that is hyping it up as a sure thing.

i haven't seen any chicago media outlets hype Amazon's HQ2 as a "sure thing" in chicago.

all i've seen out there are pieces to the effect of "chicago has a good shot at getting amazon, but it'll take a lot of effort (and money) to land them". which seems like a pretty clear and level-headed assessment to me. i think chicago does have a good shot at this, but that's all it is, a good shot, nothing more, nothing less. it's by NO means a sure thing, or done deal, or chicago's to lose, or anything silly like that. there are a handful of other cities that i could easily see Amazon choosing instead of chicago (boston, NYC, philly, DC, atlanta, Dallas, etc.).

[LouisVanDerWright]

One thing is for sure, if Amazon come here it won't land in "Lincoln Yards". Its by far the worst site I've heard proposed yet besides South works (South Works being an example of proper steel factory naming convention). Amazon would be better off partnering with Wirtz to develop the lots around United Center or locating in the IMD than going to industrial wasteland nowhere near any heavy transit. Amazon needs to go on an underutilized CTA line if at all possible. Something like the United Center area would be ideal as they could add a pink line stop and have access to three underutilized lines, West side blue line, Green Line, and Pink line.

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Seemed like a decent name to me, referencing the former steel yard on which it lies and the neighborhood, Lincoln Park. I would have preferred Finkl Yards or Clybourn Yards, but it's not that bad. At least they didn't go with some stupid portmanteau like "NoCly" or something like that.

But that's just it, Finkl was not a"yard" in any capacity. You call that a "mill" or "works". Why couldn't they go with "North Works" or "Lincoln Mills"? Oh yeah, because then they wouldn't be properly circlejerking every NYC based element in the industry by ripping off Hudson Yards.

[Via Chicago]

i do find it kind of funny that our urban areas are now taking up the suburban passtime of naming developments after the things they replace

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

But that's just it, Finkl was not a"yard" in any capacity. You call that a "mill" or "works". Why couldn't they go with "North Works" or "Lincoln Mills"? Oh yeah, because then they wouldn't be properly circlejerking every NYC based element in the industry by ripping off Hudson Yards.

Lincoln Works would have been much better.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i do find it kind of funny that our urban areas are now taking up the suburban passtime of naming developments after the things they replace

It's almost as if place names almost all originate this way...

Oh yeah, that's exactly where they typically come from. The exception was explosive urban development in the 19th century where people just named streets after whatever words they fancied. The norm is describing whatever the defining feature of the place was. Look at England, almost all the place names are old English or Gaelic descriptions of what used to be there. They simply have had a name so long that the original meaning of the words is lost on those only familiar with modern tounge.

[Near North Resident]

well Amazon did say they would need 100+ acres so Sterling would be stupid not to make a proposal, traffic be damned... and seriously its not that far from the brown line

regardless if they wanted some dense towers there are very few spots for that... did you know that they want a spot for 50,000 employees.... the sears tower capacity holds 12,000

so we would need the density of 4 sears towers on one block... or 4 city blocks... please find me any spot like that with El train access that isn't in the ghetto and you could build 4, 1500 foot towers there... lol


but I would imagine that Amazon would like a car accessible site as well (to draw talent from the entire metro area rather than just those with an el pass... this HQ2 is going to be MASSIVE in size and scope and at least SB is thinking big right

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

and Brown/Red lines would become more of a disaster than they already are.

I don't think that is necessarily true. With regard to generally southbound flow, most commuters don't even get off until Lake (Red Line) or Merchandise Mart (Brown Line). This could actually help to spread the commuter load over more stations which could actually be a positive particularly where we have so much development along the Brown and Red lines south of North Avenue. Indeed, those neighborhoods could actually provide commuters that could allow us to better utilize the northbound trains departing the Loop which are generally empty at this point.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

well Amazon did say they would need 100+ acres so Sterling would be stupid not to make a proposal, traffic be damned... and seriously its not that far from the brown line

regardless if they wanted some dense towers there are very few spots for that... did you know that they want a spot for 50,000 employees.... the sears tower capacity holds 12,000

so we would need the density of 4 sears towers on one block... or 4 city blocks... please find me any spot like that with El train access that isn't in the ghetto and you could build 4, 1500 foot towers there... lol


but I would imagine that Amazon would like a car accessible site as well (to draw talent from the entire metro area rather than just those with an el pass... this HQ2 is going to be MASSIVE in size and scope and at least SB is thinking big right

It's been said but a combination of the Old Post Office, the Union Station redevelopment, the 311 Wacker-adjacent sites, and the Holiday Inn block could probably accommodate most if not all of their employees, with multiple L lines, multiple commuter rail lines, and easy highway access all built in.

The area south of the Old Post Office to Roosevelt is also the least developed area of downtown, so there's even room for the multiplier effect companies, but transit gets scarcer the farther from the OPO you get. The 78 will also have office space to accommodate more growth as needed.

[Via Chicago]

honestly, i wonder why Amazon is so gung ho on trying to cram all of this onto one site to begin with. seems to me a few satellite offices across the country would work just as well and do a better job at spreading out/drawing upon talent and increase their available labor options, without overburdening a single locality. google already does this. at 50k employees, youre nothing but a faceless anonymous cog working for a faceless company and youre not going to interact with 99.9% of the people there so not sure the supposed benefits of all being under one roof or whatever would really play out.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i haven't seen any chicago media outlets hype Amazon's HQ2 as a "sure thing" in chicago.

all i've seen out there are pieces to the effect of "chicago has a good shot at getting amazon, but it'll take a lot of effort (and money) to land them". which seems like a pretty clear and level-headed assessment to me. i think chicago does have a good shot at this, but that's all it is, a good shot, nothing more, nothing less. it's by NO means a sure thing, or done deal, or chicago's to lose, or anything silly like that. there are a handful of other cities that i could easily see Amazon choosing instead of chicago (boston, NYC, philly, DC, atlanta, Dallas, etc.).

NYC is a no-go with the MTA running well beyond capacity (with only 75% or so operational at any given time) and just the hideous expense of trying to develop 5 million plus square feet of office space in Manhattan (the only borough with ready access to both Metro North, LIRR, NJ Transit, and PATH).

Same goes for DC with the WMATA system teetering on the verge of collapse as reliability and safety issues have become so endemic that ridership is spiraling down. At this point it just isn't a safe, let alone reliable, system. Trying to jam HQ2 anywhere on that system would likely cause it to collapse entirely.

Dallas doesn't have a mass transit system to speak of and Atlanta's system is basically useless due to the internecine county politics. Both of these cities also lack the access or exposure to the kind of concentrated top tier educational institutions that Amazon referred to in their request.

[HomrQT]

The cost of real estate in Chicago is climbing higher and higher at a pretty fast pace. If Amazon looks at the Chicago real estate investment aspect, they have to know locking down a huge portion of land in downtown Chicago would only give them huge equity advantage in the coming decades. I don't think many other cities in the US can make that claim confidently. Places like Boston, DC, SF, NYC are already super expensive, and places like Philly, Denver, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston I don't see that drastic of an increase in value coming to their real estate market just for holding down a good chunk of land.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by JK47

NYC is a no-go with the MTA running well beyond capacity (with only 75% or so operational at any given time) and just the hideous expense of trying to develop 5 million plus square feet of office space in Manhattan (the only borough with ready access to both Metro North, LIRR, NJ Transit, and PATH).

Same goes for DC with the WMATA system teetering on the verge of collapse as reliability and safety issues have become so endemic that ridership is spiraling down. At this point it just isn't a safe, let alone reliable, system. Trying to jam HQ2 anywhere on that system would likely cause it to collapse entirely.

Dallas doesn't have a mass transit system to speak of and Atlanta's system is basically useless due to the internecine county politics. Both of these cities also lack the access or exposure to the kind of concentrated top tier educational institutions that Amazon referred to in their request.

the perceived importance of public transit is kind of funny too considering seattles is pretty much a joke.