I think a better location for the intersection would be closer to 14th St. That said, this will work fine as well, giving people an additional route to Clark in order to avoid the traffic nightmare that is Roosevelt.

As pilsenarch said, that light will undoubtedly be coordinated with the light at Roosevelt, so there shouldn't be too many issues with its placement. Plenty of space for a left turn lane, which should keep cars from piling up on the ramp to upper NB Clark.


The density boost will be nice. Hopefully it will provide plenty of customers for the retail that I assume will be lining Clark. Its just too bad that the east side of the street looks like garbage with the cinder block walls enclosing an illogically placed subdivision.

Mr. Emmanuel, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

Interesting. I assumed LaSalle and the Metra tracks would be at the same level, with creative architecture allowing the tracks to pass through building podiums. But in fact, they're building the entire east half of the site up to a higher level like Lakeshore East. It's an even more similar plan than I realized.

Standing on LaSalle Street looking down at Crescent Park will be very similar to standing on Field Blvd looking down at LSE Park. I love it... it will be amazing to get some visible urban topography out of this, a nice relief from Chicago's relentless flat gridiron. Another reason to keep the buildings along the river low... could be a great sunset view from on top of LaSalle.

Hopefully the design of Crescent Park isn't a cap for some ginormous parking garage. We will never get real big mature trees in a park-on-structure with shallow soil depth. Millennium Park's medium-sized trees are about as close as we would get.

Chicago Architecture Blog has a good rundown of the project's details. Possibly my favorite detail is that Wells St will have bus lanes in each direction, indicating that there will be BRT: https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...os-south-loop/

Connecting this through all they way from Ping Tom to the current Riverwalk downtown will be an epic accomplishment. Also the tangle of infrastructure and multi level streets following the rivers is epic, few cities on Earth have this kind of infrastructure density. However none have waterfront public spaces on all waterfronts and certainly none have continuous chains of parkland in such an urban setting.

It's a bit confusing. What is this LaSalle St decking over the Metra thing, but then it's a private road? What would that mean?

And I see other east west streets intersecting with Clark and the LaSalle "private road". Not sure what to make of those.

Come to think of it, why are there any private roads at all within this development?

LaSalle probably has to stay private in order to build it above the Metra tracks. CDOT probably wouldn't accept dedication of a street whose underpinning structures will have to be rebuilt in 80 years. They're facing that issue right now with Canal next to Union Station. In fact, CDOT may refuse dedication of any street without fee simple ownership of the land underneath.

As I understand it, Wells won't have continuous bus lanes. There will be bus pullouts, and that's what one of the cross-sections shows.

Interesting. My take seems to be that The 78 HOA will be financially responsible for LaSalle St, when it comes to repairs and maintenance, while the city will maintain a publicly accessible easement on the street? If that's the case (and I'm not 100% certain of that), then its a good deal for the city.

I wonder if the city will remove the cul-de-sac at 15th and Dearborn and make 15th St a through street again so that it can connect with State?

I'd very much like to see the cul-de-sacs on 15th removed, but no alderman ever willingly held a public meeting to promise townhouse owners that more traffic would be routed past their doors.

The diagrams show most of the station under Cottontail Park, so I assume that whole area will get torn up for CTA construction. They might "temporarily" open 15th for construction access and then forget to put the cul-de-sac back in. It really only affects a handful of homeowners on that one block.

Is CDOT also not accepting any new streets in Lakeshore East? This kind of thing really pisses me off, the city needs to be taking charge of these things. Otherwise we end up with private "streets" where homelessness, political protest, and any other unsightly behavior can be quickly and legally shooed away. That's especially true if Related lands Amazon, people can and will want to protest Amazon for their business practices.

On another happy note, I like the sidewalk bike lanes on Wells. I prefer that style, it really makes the sidewalk feel wider and provides a very comfortable environment for walking. The ones on Roosevelt are awesome. The city should really stripe a two-directional bike lane on Michigan Ave/s east sidewalk between Monroe and Roosevelt, too. People already ride bikes and Divvys there, might as well sanction it.

I can't think of any of those that are built over other uses, so all the streets in LSE can be dedicated ad inferos (all the way to hell).

I seriously hope that’s an actual legal term of art...

I thought several of the Lakeshore East streets sit atop parking garages? Harbor Drive and Waterside Drive definitely do, although many of the other streets have (public) lower levels or even a level below that. Lower Lower Randolph is an interesting place... the third circle of hell, if you will.

Yeah.... it's one of the most other worldly places(if that makes sense) in Chicago. I do not like it, and Lower Randolph is so cavernous, but not a in a good way

So it looks like phase I will be strictly infrastructure? I'm surprised no mention of any Phase I buildings to rise so they can begin cashing in on their investment asap.

The state budget that just passed the General Assembly includes $500 million for the Discovery Partners Institute, though there are not details of how or when those funds would be distributed.

While I share your anticipation for buildings to rise. You do realize that there is simply zero infrastructure to support a building- No water, sewer, storm drain, gas, roads, electric service. And the riverwall needs to be upgraded. A double track railroad line needs to be relocated and the major access road is actually considered Phase 3 of the Wells/Wentworth connector project. think they are completing Phase 1 now.

I wouldnt expect a foundation rig for 2 years or more. From what others have said this is a LSE type of development- 20 to 30 years for full build-out.

Phase I was completed last year IIRC, they rebuilt and widened Wentworth between Archer and Ping Tom Park, and put in a new signal at 18th.

Phase II is the dogleg realignment at Cermak to connect the two pieces of Wentworth together, and Phase III runs between Ping Tom Park and Roosevelt through the 78 Site. I assume it includes restriping north of Roosevelt as well.

Supposedly both phases are supposed to begin this year.

It's hard to find info on the Wells/Wentworth connector. I think phase 2 already started last year according to google maps or is already finished.
The Wells/Wentworth connector phase 3 part was supposed to start this year and finish in 2018

^ Good to see they are further along than I thought. Maybe a SSP photographer can get down there for an update.
All of the initial construction access will have to come through the south from Wentworth and from the north on Wells. The Wells access is not complicated, bridge viaduct is in place.
But the Wentworth phase 3 has more work to do. The CN railway will need to sign off on a new at grade crossing here: And the viaduct under the St Charles Airline will need some attention. Google Map
And this triangle of rail is in play for the Cross Rail project which is the lynchpin for connecting Metra/Amtrak and Regional rail projects to and through CUS onto OHare. So eventually Metra, Amtrak, Midwest Regional Rail, CMAP, CTA, CDOT, IDOT, CN Rail maybe BNSF since ST Charles connects to their ROW, FRA all will need to come to the table for optimal planning.

There's nothing to photograph yet. Only a few stakes in the ground.

Wells won't cross the St. Charles Airline at grade; it will use the old C&WI undercrossing (requiring an inelegant jog to nearly the river and back). "Cross Rail" is merely the dream of some foamers. There's no governmental interest in it, and in fact the IC routing has been eliminated as the corridor for HSR to Downstate.

Yes I do understand wentworth will go under the st charles airline bridge but it still needs an at grade crossing of the CN near Ping Tom park.

No, the CN is at +8 or +10 where it would cross. Wentworth will have new underpasses under both railroads.

Maybe we will get a violent uprising of urban planning-minded people who will go on a rampage, and raze Dearborn Park to the ground, at least enough to force a street grid back into existance. They could also use the aggregate to contribute a base level for some of the new roads needed...being such a civic-minded mob.

That is great to hear.

I second that. The fewer at grade crossings we can have in this city, the better.

..

South Loop developer aims to fill 4 million square feet of offices

Danny Ecker, Crain's Chicago Business

"Unveiling new details of the vision for "The 78"—named to define itself as next on the city's official list of 77 neighborhoods—Bailey laid out a tentative plan for 1.2 million square feet of offices in the center of the property in so-called "sidescraper" buildings that are relatively short with massive floor plates "that allow for collaboration between floors," he said. Depending on the needs of tenants it is able to land, that development could take various shapes ranging from several 200,000-square-foot office properties to a single structure filled with one or several companies."

That first rendering looks new to me:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...20180613221428

Looks really cool! I hope they do it like the renderings!

Initially I was quite positive (about everything except the name). Now I'm having second thoughts about the urban design aspects. We know that urbanism works best when big sites are broken into small parcels with a traditional street-and-building framework. What these renderings show is an architectural free-fire zone of objects in an overscaled landscape, à la Pudong or Isle of Dogs. Of course, no buildings have actually been designed, but the master plan should impose more discipline than this one does.

If we want a new Chicago neighborhood, we have to cook with the right ingredients. I think the site needs smaller blocks, and a kit of parts or pattern-book drawn from traditional Chicago urbanism that would guide designers of the buildings.

It'll only be a neighborhood in the same way that Printer's Row or Lakeshore East are neighborhoods, the name is silly. It'll be fine, and since it'll take 20-30 years to be fully executed, I'm sure they'll be able to snuff out any issues well in advance and make adjustments as need be

100% this.

Even assuming a highly pedestrian oriented environment, development needs streets to be functional. As it stands, this development just seems like a rehashed version of the same mistakes le corbusier made.

The name sucks, but that can be changed. I doubt people will even call it 'The 78' from the get go, since it sounds so awkward to say. The sign outside the Sears Tower says Willis on it, but find me a single Chicagoan who calls it that? ;)

As for the street layout, I'm not sure if they will change that as the development is built out. The LSE streetplan is the exact same layout as the initial plan stated. While the buildings are all radically different from the initial proposal (save for the first few... The Lancaster, the Shoreham, etc) streets are harder to change, especially with all the necesarry infrastructure that needs to be put into place (sewer lines, water mains for hydrants, etc).

I do think (and have mentioned several times) that they need to go back to the drawing board and add several more east-west streets. Not only for the easing of traffic (and in keeping Wells/Wentworth from becoming a mini-autobahn for commuters to/from the Loop), but also to keep the development from having a "superblock" feel. The pedestrian experience is enhanced when there is more variety on the street level, and that includes having smaller buildings on smaller blocks.

Small parcels? Smaller blocks? Save that for other parts of the city which currently have less than average density due to a multitude of reasons. For a parcel of land that is literally 1 mile from the Loop AND is considered part of the same, primary CDB, there is no compelling argument that can be made to justify downsizing 62 acres to something other than what was presented. The 'kit of parts...from traditional Chicago urbanism,' may have worked decades ago, but times change, urban design changes and good urban design responds to specific societal, demographic and spatial needs for each specific location - the 'kit of parts' mentality ignores those criteria and assumes a one-size-fits-all philosophy that just doesn't work. If it didn't work for Dearborn Park, what on Earth makes you think that type of philosophy would work here, literally next door to that urban planning disaster?

Dearborn Park's superblocks and big sites is what I'm trying to avoid. Even more relevant is the area just west of DP1, which was planned in the 1990s as "LaSalle Park." With no commitment to a small-block street grid, compromise after compromise was made, and it got parceled out into a series of objects on cul-de-sacs: Amli, some more Amli, a Target store, the antiurban Roosevelt Collection, the isolated British School, an Alta highrise with too much parking and land around it.

Battery Park City is probably the best example we have of how to extend a traditional American city fabric, rather than always thinking we're the generation who can ignore 3000 years of experience and invent urbanism anew.

delete

I don't think Mr D. is suggesting a density reduction at all. In fact, it should logically follow that the more dense an area is, the smaller the blocks have to be (up to a limit, of course).

While we're at it:

We need to have alleys as well.

#1: Having a designated place for garbage/infrastructure/service entrances is 90% of what makes Chicago so clean and nice compared to most other cities. The pedestrian should not be exposed to these things when walking down the street. Certainly nobody would find it acceptable for there to be dumpsters in front of stores when walking through a mall (though such things would be behind overhead doors in this case). Surely maximizing street frontage for actual commercial activity should be in the developer's interest as well?

#2: Assuming equivalent density, having regular blocks and alleys with small parcels allows an area to more easily adapt over time. If, for example, the demand for retail space in the area were to go up, structures on smaller parcels are much easier to redevelop to meet demand than single huge buildings taking up the entire block are simply because the required amount of capital is much lower. The current plan is very likely to result in relative stagnation for the area for many years after completion.

#3: Assuming smaller parcels were to be used, it is very desirable for infrastructure to remain in the same common easement an alley can provide. If any of the structures in the current plan were to be later redeveloped, it is likely that whatever replaces them would have to deal with a large amount of otherwise unnecessary utility relocations.

I think the ship has sailed on a street grid here, folks. That was the plan back in the 1910s for the entire South Loop railyards, but today this site has a superblock to the east of it, a river to the west (and then a railyard still), a tangle of rail lines to the south and only one possible connection to the north.

Street grids only make sense if you have something to connect to. I'm just not convinced that all those streets are necessary for purely internal circulation, especially if pedestrian walks already divide the site into smaller parcels.

I feel that the city should have the foresight to plan that one day DPI and II will inevitably hit the wrecking ball, as the downtown core continues to grow, vacant land disappears, and the value of the land skyrockets to the point that its feasible to buy out and redevelop the existing low density properties. Creating 13th and 14th Streets, that would currently end at Clark, will eventually be connected to their counterparts east of State St.

Also, there are two connections to the north (Wells & Delano/Lasalle)

Of course it’s not going to be a real neighborhood, just like Lakeshore East isn’t a real neighborhood. Real neighborhoods are no longer built.

By the way, that Geodesic dome is gone now. So much for it's being an "operations center" lol Guess, it was only for Amazon like we all thought.

Welp, lets hope something about it impressed them

6-25-18

http://i68.tinypic.com/2lnbak8.jpg

That looks like a small plane airport runway lol!

It looks like a giant '47 ballcap logo, to anyone who wears baseball caps. Maybe thats where the new chicago Lids flagship store is going. Lol.

Once The 78 is fully built out, South Loop will look dominant over the cityscape. Kinda like how Midtown and Lower Manhattan have their own distinct skylines.

I wouldn't look for any skyline-changers at The 78. There'll doubtless be some 40-story towers, but nothing tour guides will name. Related seems focused on what they describe as a sidescraper for a big corporate tenant, or split into sections among three or four. Something occupying a 400,000 sq ft site.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5af48a87/t.../1450/1450x816

Groundscraper i believe is the term you're looking for but i do recall plans and proper zoning for a 900 footer!

:fireworks

^ Related is doubtless trying to replicate the success of Merchandise Mart in luring tech tenants to vast open floorplates, or various tech HQs in Silicon Valley.

Apparently tech employees are allergic to elevators, they'd rather ride a scooter down a 1200' long hallway :shrug:

To be fair, riding a scooter at a high speed through an office environment does sound like a lot more fun than being stuck in an elevator. :)

I am not the biggest fan of these proposed "groundscrapers", but as long as they are done right, with proper integration to the new street grid, easy access for pedestrians, and an engaging ground floor, I think they will do just fine.

Just don't make it a city version of the Allstate HQ in Northbrook.