Quote:
|
I'm sure this is the thing to be least concerned at since its subject to change. But no one is talking about how a 950fter would be a HUGE game changer. (although we have to wait 15 years or so). Good development fills in empty space.
|
If we get Amazon or Apple, then we can start having pipedreams about a 950 footer and an accelerated pipeline. Until then, I'm just going to be happy with the infrastructure updates and additions!
|
The 78 is one of at least 4 sites Amazon visited while they were here
Anyone want to risk some $ on amazon HQ2 siteselection? Go and create an account at bovada and bet in the entertainment section. Chicago is now 40/1. $250 bet gets you $10,000. Those are really good odds. I bought in at a lower 20/1. FYI the odds makers are choosing northern VA as the odds on favorite. And if you live in the UK Paddy Power or Pinnacle would also take your bet |
Here’s a post I made about this site 4 (grumblegrumble) years ago when the deal was just being made:
Quote:
http://i.imgur.com/AYJN22W.jpg CMK, I will accept credit for inspiration in the form of money. |
that site is just gigantic
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I just posted my thoughts in the transit thread, but they are essentially the same that you posted, minus the helpful graphic. Obviously the further west of Clark the station box is placed, the better for Related, as it brings the station entrances closer to their site and reduces the impacts to Dearborn Park homes and Cottontail Park. Of course, it also brings the end of the platform closer to the point where the tracks start to curve and slope upward, but I'm sure there is a sweet spot somewhere where a 500' platform can be built. Encouraging to hear that not only does Related plan a TIF for their site, but that it is expected to produce enough money for the new subway station and other infrastructure. |
^I wouldn't say that's a sure thing yet. I'm sure they'll extend or reinstate a TIF district, but I don't know if it will be limited to the site or just how much money it will throw off. I'm sure the first claim will be for the streets/sewer/water lines, riverwalk and park grading, and Metra relocation. A new Red Line station will almost certainly require money from some other pot.
|
Looking up something else entirely, I came across my fantasy site plan from 2002:
https://i.imgur.com/VD5LLWV.jpg So you can see why I like pretty much everything about this new plan except the name. |
Personally, for a development like this, I think people should be much more concerned with the urban form and pedestrian environment than the height of the tallest tower. There are several 1,000 foot proposals in Chicago at this very moment. But fine grained urbanism on a massive scale with a blank canvas is the harder thing to achieve.
|
Quote:
First, a fine-grained neighborhood has a grid of small blocks or an otherwise tight, connective pattern of streets. A street grid has lots of total street length, most of which will be lightly-used by design. Back in the 1800s when a street was just a strip of dirt devoid of buildings, it wasn't a big deal to put in a street grid - it was a loss of developable land, but improved the value of all the subdivided parcels by ensuring access. Today, when a large parcel has new streets platted, city governments require not just a "strip of dirt devoid of buildings", but new roadbed, curbs, sidewalks, sewers, water mains, fire hydrants, street lighting, and trees. In a downtown development, add in duct banks for underground power and telecommunications. All that stuff is very expensive. The city, of course, expects the developer to pay for all of this, which means we can't use the model from the 1800s, where one landowner subdivides the land into parcels and plots "imaginary" streets with no physical infrastructure, then sells the subdivided parcels to a patchwork quilt of different builders. That's how we got "fine-grained urbanism" back then. However, under that scenario, the city had to pick up the tab for all the above-ground and below-ground infrastructure that comprised "the street", as those systems were refined and became demanded by taxpayers. Today, though, we expect our governments to keep taxes low and extract as much as possible from developers, so it's not surprising when those developers choose site plans that minimize costly new streets and propose a series of large buildings that can be built efficiently over time, in sync with economic cycles, that nevertheless deliver the maximum financial returns possible given the constraints of the site. With that being said - there are still some opportunities for fine-grained urbanism under the current paradigm. Certainly most of the city has fine-grained already baked in, since the land is already platted, but for large sites, I actually really like townhouse developments (rowhouses), as done in Chicago at least. Townhouses by design are compact, so the scale of the development is automatically fine-grained, and all the public spaces and circulation spaces in a townhouse development are private, so they don't have to built to the costly city standards. The inherent efficiencies of a townhouse project also make them friendly to developer proformas when larger midrise buildings are not allowed by community input/zoning. Controversial opinion maybe, but Willow Court in Bucktown is one of my favorite large-scale developments in the city. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Any structures nearby that's relatively the same size? |
An dense streetgrid may be a bit much to ask, but I think we should at least expect a couple of through and interconnected streets, something akin to the layout Mr. D has depicted above, as a bare minimum.
Definitely we cannot accept a Dearborn Park kind of situation. |
Though I certainly hope this project will feel more open than Dearborn Park, the facts on the ground are not actually all that different. Three streets enter The 78; only one leaves. Same with Dearborn Park, except that only peds/bikes (not autos) can currently go through on the "through" street.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
At the very minimum, 14th St should be extended from Clark all the way to Wells. Doing the same to 13th St. would be wise as well, since that will give more options for traffic to flow and disperse. Having a nearly 1/2 mile stretch of Wells with no traffic lights risk turning it into an auto-sewer as cars race along it during rush periods to get to/from downtown and neighborhoods further south. Hopefully the planning department sees this as well, and advises Related to allow for additional east-west streets, although I'm not holding my breath... |
I don't know if I'm as concerned as you on this Left_of_Center. Spending time in the South Loop and Printer's Row has taught me that there is very little vehicular traffic in that part of the city. Sure, Well st. being connected will add some, but I doubt it's enough to earn the worries you have. I think because of the suburban hell to the east of the location and industrial wasteland just on the other side of the river it'll still be shielded from much traffic. Maybe years down the line when more people know about it, it'll become a shortcut, but I'm not worried. Most people will use public transit and their feet to get there
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.