SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | Riverline | 8 Towers | 600FT - 500FT(X2) - 380FT(X2) - 242FT(X2) - 300FT~ (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=221826)

marothisu Apr 27, 2016 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7422647)
Yeah, Roosevelt Collection is sort of a game-changer. Without that, I doubt many people will walk across the river to shopping over there that isn't really pedestrian-oriented anyway.

We are talking about entertainment, dining, etc - I already listed a large handful of places that are walking distance to there. You merely have to go 1.5-2 blocks to the East (and a few more for even more) to get numerous options for both dining and entertainment.

Shopping is another story, but everything else is not that bad in that area at all if you're willing to walk a few blocks for it.

the urban politician Apr 27, 2016 7:07 PM

^ Roosevelt Collection, despite being the rather shitty design that it is, is surprisingly pleasant to walk around in and perfectly accessible to pedestrians. It's more of a victim of its location and the lack of much around it than anything else.

But over time, as a lot of development happens around it I think it will be well patronized and perhaps accessibility issues (particularly from the north) will be fixed.

Of course, you can't fix the horrifying planning disaster that is Dearborn Park I & II, but Roosevelt Collection is a very different story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7422647)
Grading and building streets and laying utilities isn't free. It costs millions, maybe hundreds of millions for a large site, and all government work is subject to bidding and contracting rules (community hiring, MBE/DBE, prevailing wage) that drive up cost.

Much easier and overall cheaper to let developers plat things on their own and handle street/utility construction according to a common set of city design standards.

^ A good point, and that does apply to completely virgin land like this one. But there are other sites where this is not the case, and the city has never thought twice to have a master developer take over the entire thing.

Busy Bee Apr 27, 2016 7:57 PM

^ Anyone know if that is the case with Mission Bay in SF?

Mr Downtown Apr 27, 2016 9:10 PM

We're mixing together two different kinds of redevelopment. Private-ownership sites, like Central Station or Riverline or even Finkl Steel are seldom so large that their owners feel the need to break them up. Urban renewal districts, such as Mission Bay or the North Loop, typically have been assembled from many small holdings that were seen as a blighting influence, so cities aren't anxious to parcel it out into such small pieces again, though very seldom do they look for one developer to do more than one square block/100,000 square feet. Occasionally, as at Battery Park City, the government agency has a big single-ownership site that they do want to parcel out to different developers, so they put in place a street framework and a specific plan regarding uses and building envelopes, often even architectural design guidelines. But usually the city is looking for a big, game-changing project to happen. I was part of a brainstorming session about 2000 over what to do with Block 37. My suggestion that it be parceled out went over like a fart in church, because the idea of just ending up with a three-story Best Buy or OfficeMax after all that trouble was so unsatisfying to policymakers.

Chicago just doesn't have the persistence or the expertise to properly do a specific-plan redevelopment that might last many decades. And some projects that were broken up for multiple owners—LaSalle Park, Cityfront Center, North Loop, Glenview NAS, Riverview—haven't been particularly memorable or rewarding.

brian_b May 2, 2016 4:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 7422734)
^ Roosevelt Collection, despite being the rather shitty design that it is, is surprisingly pleasant to walk around in and perfectly accessible to pedestrians. It's more of a victim of its location and the lack of much around it than anything else.

As much as people on this site hate it, my kids enjoy the little parklet, the fountain, and the British School green roof. Because of the vertical difference between streets, it's useless as a pass-through for cars, but not pedestrians. As the neighborhood develops, I would bet that it stays a very pleasant place to walk around in.

SamInTheLoop May 25, 2016 3:58 PM

Anybody been by the part of the parcel where site work has begun this week yet? No substantive permits issued yet for Riverline??

Kngkyle May 25, 2016 4:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7452843)
Anybody been by the part of the parcel where site work has begun this week yet? No substantive permits issued yet for Riverline??

Everything was quiet last week. All of the heavy equipment that was on site was removed. I haven't been by this week.... perhaps I'll check it out today.

harryc May 25, 2016 5:51 PM

5/22
The site has been prepped and leveled.

r18tdi May 25, 2016 6:22 PM

Building 'D' is first up (they're lettered from north to south).
I asked someone associated with the project.

Kngkyle May 25, 2016 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 7453046)
Building 'D' is first up (they're lettered from north to south).
I asked someone associated with the project.

So that would be this one then?

http://content.screencast.com/users/...05-25_1359.png

aaron38 May 26, 2016 12:24 AM

Makes sense they'd build from the inside out.

Randomguy34 May 26, 2016 1:26 AM

^ That means River City is finally going to have a neighbor. However, that also means we will have to wait even longer to see how the development fronts Wells Street

harryc May 26, 2016 2:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7453096)

No the next one over - well that is where the prep has been done, the one with the arrow is sited on the far left in this view - not prepped yet, and possibly still occupied by urban campers.
3/31

looking N from River City

4/7
S/W corner



5/22

Ryanrule May 26, 2016 3:05 PM

Wonder where the homeless will move to after these big lots are all gone.

woodrow May 26, 2016 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanrule (Post 7453988)
Wonder where the homeless will move to after these big lots are all gone.

Moving south of Roosevelt -

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...outh-rezkoland

- until Related moves them from there

harryc Jun 12, 2016 1:38 PM

Ready and waiting
 
6/02



harryc Jun 12, 2016 1:48 PM

Ready and waiting
 
d.p.

left of center Jun 13, 2016 12:37 AM

Its like moving all of downtown Peoria and putting it along the river in the South Loop. This is going to change the area tremendously. Its crazy to think that it took this long to fill these scars in the urban fabric, but then again the city had plenty of empty industrial land and parking lots to work with over the last few decades.

Anyone have any ideas on street placement, if any? I'm sure they'll extend Polk some distance into the property, maybe even add traffic lights to the Polk/Wells intersection (a Polk Street bridge over the river would be nice too, however unlikely).

Hopefully retail fronts Wells. The city might even consider widening it, as it stands a good chance of becoming a main street for the neighborhood, especially if it is extended south of Roosevelt (and connected to Wentworth) into the huge 60 acre former rail yard that Related Midwest has a stake in. When considering that Clark Street is mostly inaccessible due to the active rail lines that run along side it between Roosevelt and 18th, it becomes a no brainer.

ardecila Jun 13, 2016 1:23 AM

Actually it looks like this development will close off the option of a Polk St bridge for the foreseeable future. It will be extended into the site, but as a cul-de-sac for access to the lobby of the building... as part of the bridge approach, you'd have to elevate Polk St and do some major redesign to the podium of that building as well as River City.

The Riverline plan does include preparations for the Taylor St bridge... the buildings around there will be set back and have blank walls facing the future bridge. Honestly Taylor is not the best spot for a bridge... Taylor does extend west all the way to Western, but east of Wells you have to build a new underpass below Metra and then you still run into the Dearborn Park Chinese wall. Polk is narrower but at least it connects east to State...

Maybe Polk could still get a pedestrian bridge with a smaller footprint?

left of center Jun 13, 2016 1:38 AM

I was going to say, Taylor St doesn't seem like the best option for a bridge, as it would just terminate immediately after crossing the river at Wells (unless awkwardly forced to Clark somehow). Then again, it does offer access to 90/94, which might be the idea. It would definitely help alleviate any extra demand on Roosevelt during rush hour, which is already above carrying capacity.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.