CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

^Answered in transportation thread.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Oh God....I have a feeling this is going to be absolutely hideous.....so much potential in that part of town esp of they put in a brown line stop at division.....but the development style is just so damn non-urban....a true scar and missed opportunity in patchy over the wound that was Cabrini

^ I'm not following. The CHA's Plan for Transformation so far has produced nothing that looks non-urban. Walk up 2 or 3 or 6 flats, apartment buildings, or even a few mixed-use buildings. Very traditional Chicago-style kind of stuff with restored streetgrids.

[Kippis]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Woah, that's an awesome design! And, best of all, I believe it is replacing a Midas and Baskin Robins strip mall hell!

This will really change the nature of this area as it's almost entirely a drive-in drive-out retail center right now while the addition of 460 apartment units will actually add a solid residential component to the district.

Yes, Midas, a mattress store, Staples and a Dunkin/Baskin Robbins. I wholeheartedly agree about the Roosevelt Rd. frontage, although Dunkin' Donuts best be getting some square footage in this development -- I don't mind losing the suburban drive-in-drive-out hell as long as they "stay put" so I can get my coffee fix (in a manner of speaking, of course) ...

But overall this is great news! I live just north of here and it would certainly be a nice addition to this area. Including the Roosevelt stretch, the blocks between it and Harrison are a bit stark and unfriendly, especially for pedestrians.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Will this Roosevelt project be any different than the Roosevelt collection flop? What is a a couple blocks west going to do? I like it, but it seems like an odd business choice to build there.

[Mr Downtown]

I don't think this project replaces any of the retail fronting Roosevelt, nor even the Staples. I think it's north of that, the old warehouse that runs from Grenshaw to Taylor.

[wrab]

Big news on a makeover of Daley Bicentennial Park in the Sun-Times here.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Will this Roosevelt project be any different than the Roosevelt collection flop? What is a a couple blocks west going to do? I like it, but it seems like an odd business choice to build there.

Have you been to the Roosevelt Collection? It's very suburban. And it's very disconnected from the grid. Even if you drive there, it's awkward, and walking is PITA due to its disconnected nature.

Originally Posted by wrab

Big news on a makeover of Daley Bicentennial Park in the Sun-Times here.

Interesting. Pictures aren't really big enough to get sense of it. Maybe I'm alone, but I rather like what's there now - I'd be happy with the same thing, just tidied up with modern fixtures.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Will this Roosevelt project be any different than the Roosevelt collection flop? What is a a couple blocks west going to do? I like it, but it seems like an odd business choice to build there.

The Roosevelt Project is failure by design, not location. They created somewhat of a retail arcade that

1. Has a dead end, or culdescac
2. Is on a high speed road
3. Nearly 70% of the retail has no visual connection to the road, not even the sidewalk.
4. Isolated, no real integration with the street grid.

All of those factors work against it. Meanwhile the Southgate Mall enjoys high levels of occupancy and superb customer traffic....many of them pedestrians.

1. Not complete, but better integration with city streets.
2. All stores are visible from streets, including ones on upper floors.

I think the proposed project is VERY different from the Roosevelt project. Again, it has nothing to do with location, rather terrible architectural design.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I have been to the roosevelt collection, and I agree with you on the design flaws, but the south loop area in general is a foreclosure nightmare right now. Buildings seem to be failing every other month. Is an apartment building really a wise business venture at the moment? I mean, it's not my money, and it would be cool for the area, but it doesn't seem smart to me IMO.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Hayward

All of those factors work against it. Meanwhile the Southgate Mall enjoys high levels of occupancy and superb customer traffic....many of them pedestrians.

1. Not complete, but better integration with city streets.
2. All stores are visible from streets, including ones on upper floors.

Pretty much all those pedestrians are headed to the Whole Foods. If RC had anchor tenant of the same quality it would be just as busy.

Southgate does have some interior/basement stores that are not street visible. The drawing power of the WF and the ample parking makes the center viable.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by wrab

Big news on a makeover of Daley Bicentennial Park in the Sun-Times here.

Is this really news? All this stuff came out last fall, including the ideas about the skate ribbon, the hills, climbing areas, and so forth. I think I even posted it here.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is this really news? All this stuff came out last fall, including the ideas about the skate ribbon, the hills, climbing areas, and so forth. I think I even posted it here.

^ I don't care much for Daley Bi in its current format, so I welcome the change. Right now it is too formal and rectilinear; I tend to believe in the Olmstead philosophy of parks--they should be informal, lazy, meandering--a true respite from the rigid lines of the city.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by k1052

Pretty much all those pedestrians are headed to the Whole Foods. If RC had anchor tenant of the same quality it would be just as busy.

Southgate does have some interior/basement stores that are not street visible. The drawing power of the WF and the ample parking makes the center viable.

No, the limited access really does make a difference, especially to non-drivers.

And Roosevelt does have a large movie theatre that is better than the River East 21 theatre in a lot of ways, but doesn't seem to get the same crowds. It's busy, but not nearly as busy as I think they'd hoped. Which, again, is mainly because it's access is limited.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I have been to the roosevelt collection, and I agree with you on the design flaws, but the south loop area in general is a foreclosure nightmare right now. Buildings seem to be failing every other month. Is an apartment building really a wise business venture at the moment? I mean, it's not my money, and it would be cool for the area, but it doesn't seem smart to me IMO.

It all comes down to cost. This location is as close or closer to the University Village development as it is to the South Loop, so it also has relatively easy access to all of that Halsted stuff, too.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by emathias

No, the limited access really does make a difference, especially to non-drivers.

And Roosevelt does have a large movie theatre that is better than the River East 21 theatre in a lot of ways, but doesn't seem to get the same crowds. It's busy, but not nearly as busy as I think they'd hoped. Which, again, is mainly because it's access is limited.

Pretty much all the non-drivers headed to Southgate are going to the WF. I spend a lot of time in this area.

The theater at RC actually does quite well. Better than RE in some respects.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I don't care much for Daley Bi in its current format, so I welcome the change. Right now it is too formal and rectilinear; I tend to believe in the Olmstead philosophy of parks--they should be informal, lazy, meandering--a true respite from the rigid lines of the city.

I know, but the plans were revealed several months ago and I thought everyone here already knew about it.

There are some pretty new renderings, but they don't really show any new features - and they're pretty fantastical, as the trees won't get to that height for 30 years. There's not much room underground for root systems because of the parking structure, which will stunt the height of the trees. I believe the new "hills" are meant to give additional soil depth to support bigger trees. Said hills will probably be "fake", built largely of geofoam with a soil topper.

[markh9]

Here are some higher rez renders of the Roosevelt Road development from Crains' 'Chicago Business Today' webcast. Click here to watch it (it's at ~01:26), but there's no new information besides the renderings.

Looks great close up!

[Alliance]

Its decent but it too much. Preferably those towers would be half as many and twice as tall. Damn they're long too. I'm not really such a fan of all these uniform megadevelopments.

I'm also not entirely sure how all that grey precast will look in real life. But at least they tried.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is this really news? All this stuff came out last fall, including the ideas about the skate ribbon, the hills, climbing areas, and so forth. I think I even posted it here.

Sorry - I spent last Fall off the grid in the wilds of the UP, so I missed your post. I thought that this was news. My bad.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by wrab

Sorry - I spent last Fall off the grid in the wilds of the UP, so I missed your post. I thought that this was news. My bad.

How dare you.