I know, you can never have enough public assess :tup:

as for the promenade, does that really mean no path at all or just no large path lined with activities? because they do mention the need for them to cover security for the area and the new park. Were they building a path to the new park on the north side by the slip anyways?

Bumping this post for reference.

A lot of the concerns Reilly raised seem to be lifted from SOAR's letter on the issue but the issues raised by SOAR, when read in context, seem to be much less severe. Particularly on the Security issue where apparently SOAR is under the impression that the park would host major events with 5000 or more attendees.

Also on the subject of the Ogden Slip the letter from SOAR sought clarification on whether the perpetual easement for the adjacent condominiums (including East Water Place along the Slip) would be maintained to permit access through the 400 LSD site to DuSable Park.

https://soarchicago.org/wp-content/u...00-LSD-ltr.pdf

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...-not-dead-yet/

Not opposed to seeing the podium get axed.

Dammit, Reilly is a massive turd. Hopefully, minor changes can be made to appease him (ala LSE when he decided to "stall" that project as well earlier this year) in order for this project to go through.

We need to rid ourselves of this aldermanic prerogative garbage. Chicago is a CITY, not a patchwork of medieval fiefdoms...

This will ultimately be a one tower project.....

Well done.

And you came to that conclusion how?

Interesting. With DuSable run by the Park District, I would think many of those questions should be directed to them. But I really don't get the connection drawn to Millennium Park (run by a private foundation which shouldn't be relevant to DuSable) nor the notion that a Park District that manages and maintains some 600 parks (including those with massive events) somehow cannot itself manage this one little area.
With regard to river walk maintenance, I would think whatever the standards are for all the other private walks would apply. But that is a reasonable question.

Am I reading correctly that the group does not favor sidewalk restaurants on the riverwalk? Unfortunate, if true. Plus, if this group has concerns about safety, they should be looking to increase activity, not reduce it. Restaurants. A hotel where people come and go at all hours. Those create activity. Better still, tear down the townhomes and construct highrises. Voila, plenty of additional activity.

Column: So much for those smart plans for the Chicago Spire site. They're falling victim to Reilly's NIMBY cave-in.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...023-story.html

I’m making a prediction, I could be completely wrong and I’d welcome it. It seems to me that with the constraints the alderman is placing on the use of Water St and the loss of the hotel that the unit count will likely be reduced. Without Water St, this development is completely isolated and using LSD primarily is completely unreasonable. The project is 850 units without the hotel and is in an already isolated location, I don’t see how that’s sustainable given these new stipulations. Again, I could be wrong.

I think you're extrapolating too far. The impression I got was that they're trying to get detail on what exactly the plan is for the northern shore of the Riverwalk. Whether it'll be programmed with restaurants in addition to the two planned restaurants at the hotel (e.g. more vehicle traffic) or incorporate those restaurants...whether there will be a wharf allowing boats to tie up...etc. Plans for that side of the river have been pretty vague...I think the original Riverwalk plan included a movable footbridge in that area connecting both shores of the Riverwalk.

Tear those stupid ass condos to the ground then. Where's Daley and his bulldozers when you need them?

C'mon Fourth Estate. Hold this aldergoon accountable.

wellllllllll

Tearing them to the ground doesn't change the fact that there is a single two lane road providing both access to the site as well as access for construction vehicles, delivery trucks, and garbage trucks among others. Putting a few thousand people on a two lane cul-de-sac with a hotel and a couple of restaurants is going to result in congestion.

I wonder if they've considered taking this pedestrian path and turning into a side/service road.

https://i.imgur.com/8fezOMN.jpg

spire hole looks like a cenote there

Are people forgetting that a 2000' building was under construction here not too long ago lol. I understand complaints about ped access to and around the site and the possible conflicts with congestion caused by a hotel, but construction traffic shouldn't be reason to stall this.

Facts! :haha: