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)

ardecila Apr 26, 2016 4:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501 (Post 7419939)
it's insane that's still vacant. Look at the location. It's ridiculous

There's tons of vacant land in and around downtown Chicago. That's one of the reasons our city is so affordable compared to coastal cities. There's just this enormous band of post-industrial and railyard land surrounding the Loop.

This particular site is on the (smelly) South Branch, with no lake views and it's not within easy walking distance of dining, entertainment or transit.

The reason this site is getting developed now is A) the South Loop north of Roosevelt is getting filled up, and B) various park and riverwalk investments have caused Chicagoans to re-evaluate the way they see the River.

Bertrand Goldberg saw potential here back in the 70s, but the market did not agree with him. We'll have to see if well-heeled renters are willing to live in this location (the strong leasing at the AMLI projects indicates yes).

marothisu Apr 26, 2016 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7420695)
There's tons of vacant land in and around downtown Chicago. That's one of the reasons our city is so affordable compared to coastal cities. There's just this enormous band of post-industrial and railyard land surrounding the Loop.

The whole city of Chicago is not downtown, and while there's vacant land available - a big majority of it is in South Loop. There's some in River North obviously but it's not as much as you think especially versus South Loop. This isn't the reason why real estate is cheaper here than say NYC - at least not the full reason.

Quote:

This particular site is on the (smelly) South Branch, with no lake views and it's not within easy walking distance of dining, entertainment or transit.
It's not my favorite area of town, not do I think it's completely amazing with walkability but I have 3 friends who live extremely close to this site and you are not correct. It's not teeming with entertainment or dining, but there's definitely that stuff around there within walking distance not to mention there's multiple train stops near there within walking distance - LaSalle Blue Line, LaSalle Street Metra, and the Harrison Street red line stop and also bus lines right nearby.

Are you sure you actually know where this site is? Within walking distance to there is Sociale, Cafe Press, Blackie's, Villain's, First Draft, Sofi, Flaco's, Pat's, Hackney's, Bar Louie, Amarit Thai, Meli Cafe, etc and over a block or two more near State or Wabash are things like Jazz Showcase, Buddy Guy's, Spanglish, Epic Burger, Lou Malnati's, etc.

SamInTheLoop Apr 26, 2016 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7420415)
I'm excited that something is finally going up, well maybe not so excited we're essentially getting a little village of glass blue boxes, but at least the site no longer remains vacant. Will be interesting to see how close they stick to the current plans. Fingers crossed for height increases.

A little village of glass blue boxes? Is that really your assessment of the proposed architecture we've seen of this project?

Via Chicago Apr 26, 2016 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501 (Post 7419939)
it's insane that's still vacant. Look at the location. It's ridiculous

except i doubt you would have wanted to live in this general area 20 years ago either given the other affordable, more attractive choices available. and honestly its still far from my favorite place to spend time...even most of the new developments down there leave a lot to be desired IMO and come off frankly as cold and impersonal. but ive always preferred established leafy human scaled neighborhoods to post-industrial boomtown highrise neighborhoods (i feel the same way about LSE), so your mileage may vary.

VKChaz Apr 26, 2016 6:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 7421106)
...even most of the new developments down there leave a lot to be desired IMO and come off frankly as cold and impersonal. but ive always preferred established leafy human scaled neighborhoods to post-industrial boomtown highrise neighborhoods (i feel the same way about LSE), so your mileage may vary.

I really would like to an effort to develop some of these large parcels in the form of traditional neighborhoods rather than "planned communities"

emathias Apr 26, 2016 7:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7420695)
...
This particular site is on the (smelly) South Branch, with no lake views and it's not within easy walking distance of dining, entertainment or transit.
...

It's not that far from Printers Row, there's some dining in Roosevelt Collection, theatres there, it will draw in more just by virtue of the population it brings.

The furthest part of the site is less than a 10 minute walk from the Lasalle subway station on the Blue Line or the Harrison stop on the Red Line subway, and maybe an 11 minute walk from the Lasalle/VanBuren loop station. The north end of the site is less than a 5 minute walk from the Blue Line, and 5-6 minute walks to the Loop or Harrison/Red. While I agree it doesn't "feel" close to transit, it's actually not badly served. I mean, sure, if I were King, the Orange Line would come north over the Metra tracks and then cut over to Wells just south of Congress to join the Loop at Wells/VanBuren, with stations at Polk, stretching south from Roosevelt, and at 15th, with 15th re-opened as a public through street through Dearborn Park 2. But even without that, there is rail transit nearby and for most of the site it's only a 5 minute walk to some or all of the 22/Clark, 36/Broadway and 24/Wentworth buses. And if they do make a Polk bridge, the 156, 157 and 125 buses won't be far, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz (Post 7421360)
I really would like to an effort to develop some of these large parcels in the form of traditional neighborhoods rather than "planned communities"

I agree. I actually with the City would have just bought the land, plotted it, added utilities in the street robust enough for the zoning and sold off the plots that way, with "walkable streets" design requirements. It'd probably be a much more interesting area in 20 years if they'd done that.

HomrQT Apr 26, 2016 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7421088)
A little village of glass blue boxes? Is that really your assessment of the proposed architecture we've seen of this project?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you implying that blue glass is not the visually dominating exterior material of these buildings? I'm getting the feeling you're someone that really likes glass boxes and you're looking to silence any dissent on them...

Kngkyle Apr 26, 2016 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7421412)
I agree. I actually with the City would have just bought the land, plotted it, added utilities in the street robust enough for the zoning and sold off the plots that way, with "walkable streets" design requirements. It'd probably be a much more interesting area in 20 years if they'd done that.

This really needs to happen with the 62 acre site to the south that Related now owns. I'm a bit scared to see what Related plans to do with it now...

the urban politician Apr 26, 2016 8:10 PM

^ As with most industries out there, Government hates small business. They are difficult to control. It's more convenient to deal with one large player.

This applies to real estate as well. But I agree, and I find it odd that not one person anywhere in Chicago appears to have ever advocated this approach for a large, undeveloped parcel of land.

ardecila Apr 27, 2016 6:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 7421482)
^ As with most industries out there, Government hates small business. They are difficult to control. It's more convenient to deal with one large player.

This applies to real estate as well. But I agree, and I find it odd that not one person anywhere in Chicago appears to have ever advocated this approach for a large, undeveloped parcel of land.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7421412)
It's not that far from Printers Row, there's some dining in Roosevelt Collection, theatres there, it will draw in more just by virtue of the population it brings.

While I agree it doesn't "feel" close to transit, it's actually not badly served.

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.

Still, though, you don't really have the kind of "scene" that you get in River North, Gold Coast, Old Town, Wicker Park, Lakeview, the South Michigan corridor, or West Loop. It just feels very sleepy and disconnected at the Riverline site, the Metra viaduct and Dearborn Park are giant walls severing it from the bulk of South Loop. But yeah, perception and reality are not always the same thing. Hopefully a few strategic shopping and dining options at Riverline will help activate Wells Street.

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.

Jim in Chicago Jun 13, 2016 2:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7472294)
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?

The corner of Clark and Polk is already massively over-crowded and on any given morning and afternoon traffic is backed up way beyond Roosevelt, and often to 18th. Maybe extending Wells St. through will help, but doing anything to put more traffic in that area would be carmageddon. The whole traffic flow between Congress and Roosevelt and the River and State St. needs a total rethinking but Chicago seems unable to engage in those large-scale conversations these days.

One small suggestion - make Clark two-way one more block to Congress, eliminating the bottleneck where people are forced to turn left or right onto traffic-clogged Harrison as this seems a major factor in the huge backup on Clark.

BVictor1 Jun 16, 2016 11:53 PM

Looks like foundation equipment coming in...

harryc Jun 17, 2016 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7477001)
Looks like foundation equipment coming in...

Wow - was all quiet at lunch today

BVictor1 Jun 17, 2016 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc (Post 7477030)
Wow - was all quiet at lunch today

I took some snaps from the boat. I'll post them later.

BVictor1 Jun 17, 2016 4:42 AM

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

SamInTheLoop Jun 17, 2016 1:23 PM

^ Nice. 'Bout time big equipment shows up on site. Permit action? Assume something will show up there shortly.....

BVictor1 Jun 19, 2016 7:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7477482)
^ Nice. 'Bout time big equipment shows up on site. Permit action? Assume something will show up there shortly.....

There may be two separate pieces of equipment. I know that I saw the big crane being used to lower air conditioning units from atop Wells Street Tower, but I think more was delivered than just for that.

SolarWind Jul 8, 2016 6:42 PM

July 7, 2016


Jim in Chicago Jul 11, 2016 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind (Post 7497686)
July 7, 2016


I'm only past there in late afternoon and weekends, but I've seen no signs of any activity for several weeks. The cranes are gone, and the same piles of broken up stuff are in exactly the same places as they've been for weeks.

ardecila Jul 11, 2016 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago (Post 7472588)
The corner of Clark and Polk is already massively over-crowded and on any given morning and afternoon traffic is backed up way beyond Roosevelt, and often to 18th. Maybe extending Wells St. through will help, but doing anything to put more traffic in that area would be carmageddon. The whole traffic flow between Congress and Roosevelt and the River and State St. needs a total rethinking but Chicago seems unable to engage in those large-scale conversations these days.

One small suggestion - make Clark two-way one more block to Congress, eliminating the bottleneck where people are forced to turn left or right onto traffic-clogged Harrison as this seems a major factor in the huge backup on Clark.

Well ideally the four-lane Wells-Wentworth will take all or most of the traffic from the Dan Ryan feeder ramps at Cermak. That's the bulk of the traffic on Clark.

Also you've got the Circle Interchange closures right now, which change the traffic patterns all over downtown. No access from the Dan Ryan to inbound Congress, so you have a lot more people exiting at Chinatown, Roosevelt, etc and working their way to the Loop on surface streets.

SamInTheLoop Jul 22, 2016 2:00 PM

Still no signs of life again here? I wonder if we have a permitting holdup for some reason here........if so, hopefully just related to a particular issue for project that is on its way to being resolved, and not part of something systemic (as a couple years ago with those massive delays in all building plan reviews and permit issuance)......

Jim in Chicago Jul 22, 2016 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7509885)
Still no signs of life again here? I wonder if we have a permitting holdup for some reason here........if so, hopefully just related to a particular issue for project that is on its way to being resolved, and not part of something systemic (as a couple years ago with those massive delays in all building plan reviews and permit issuance)......

Also wondering. They didn't even really finish up the site prep and left behind huge piles of stuff they'd scraped off the surface. I haven't seen signs of life in weeks. It isn't showing on the CMK webite as a project, but I don't think it ever did.

munchymunch Jul 22, 2016 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago (Post 7510040)
Also wondering. They didn't even really finish up the site prep and left behind huge piles of stuff they'd scraped off the surface. I haven't seen signs of life in weeks. It isn't showing on the CMK webite as a project, but I don't think it ever did.

It's on lend lease's website.

The Lurker Jul 23, 2016 4:44 PM

7/22
 
Still quiet...

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8663/...0a8b3628_b.jpg

The North One Jul 23, 2016 9:06 PM

It really baffles me that there's still fields on the riverfront on both sides of river city.

So much prime real estate not being taken advantage of.

Kumdogmillionaire Jul 24, 2016 3:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 7511053)
It really baffles me that there's still fields on the riverfront on both sides of river city.

So much prime real estate not being taken advantage of.


Not for long though! :tup:

go go white sox Jul 25, 2016 9:16 PM

How long you guys honestly think until we see development on the West side of the river over on the train tracks side? With the post office redevelopment and riverline i think it's only a matter of time before we see our version of nyc's Hudson yards. Can you imagine if and when all that land gets developed Chicago would feel even way bigger. That has to be at least 100+ sq acres of land.

Mr Downtown Jul 25, 2016 9:45 PM

^Maybe 30 years, unless used for one or another stadium project. Platforms over active railyards aren't cheap.

ithakas Aug 2, 2016 2:26 PM

An update on Riverline courtesy of a neighbor writing in to Sloopin:

Quote:

This email came through via Property Solutions via a fellow resident at my building, Paper Place Loftominiums at 801 S. Wells (across the street from River City):

The Riverline project has been delayed because they are currently working through the Bond process in order to start the infrastructure. The timeline is dependent on the City process and is not something they can control. They hope and anticipate that work would start in first quarter or second quarter of next year (2017). In the meantime, they have been working with the Mayor’s Office regarding ground breaking for the first building which is anticipated to start in mid-September. The early earth work which was started in the spring was simply pot holing in order to make sure they did not run into any obstructions when first building.
Source: http://www.sloopin.com/2016/08/river...layed-due.html

SamInTheLoop Aug 2, 2016 6:37 PM

^ Wonder what the distinction is between "the riverline project" (first sentence), and "the first building" (fourth sentence). The way it's worded, it's unclear, but sounds to me as if they are saying first building of Riverline is targeted to begin construction next month, while large scale infrastructure work for the overall project won't begin until first or second quarter of next year.......??

Also, I wonder what the bond process in particular is that is mentioned as being worked through? It makes it sound as though this is a public process (as opposed to say, Lend Lease issuing corporate bonds earmarked for the project, or something)......I wonder what that is, though....there weren't TIF funds approved for Riverline, were there??


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:37 PM.

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